DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 04 of 2019

 

 

1. SAHA ENTERPRISE,

Prop- Sri Tridip Saha,

Of A.A. Road, Ompi Chowmuhani,

Teliamura, P.O.-Teliamura, Pin-799205,

District-Khowai Tripura.

 

 

2. SRI TRIPAN SAHA,

S/O.-Sri Tridip Saha,

Of A.A. Road, Ompi Chowmuhani,

Teliamura, P.O.-Teliamura, Pin-799205,

District-Khowai Tripura.…...................................................................................Complainants.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

1.United Bank of India, 

Head Office : Hemanta Basu Sarani, 

Kolkata – 700001, West Bengal,

Represented by its Chairman. 

 

2. The  Regional Manager, 

United Bank of India,

Regional Office,

Durga Bari Road, Agartala,

P.S.-East Agartala, P.O.-Agartala,

Pin-799001.

 

3. Branch Manager,

United Bank of India,

Teliamura, Pin-799205, 

P.O.+ P.S.-Teliamura,

District-Khowai Tripura................................................................................Opposite Parties. 

 

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SRI UMESH DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. Dr BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Amrit Lal Saha,

  Sri Kajal Nandi,

  Smt. Manisha Chakraborty, 

  Advocates.

 

For the O.P. No.1, 2 & 3 : Sri Loknath Datta,

  Advocate.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 20/ 03 /2020

 

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainants set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency of service by the O.Ps.

 

Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainants are account holders of the O.P. Bank. The Complainant No.1 had initially availed of financial assistance by way of cash credit facility of Rs.10 lacs. against CC A/C No.02652100030006 from the O.P. Bank. In due course of time the credit limit had been raised time to time and lastly it was increased to Rs.1 crore. The loan was converted to over draft loan account. 

 

Apart from the above loan account the Complainant Nos. 1&2 also availed of financial assistance from the O.P. No.3, the Branch Manager United Bank of India, Teliamura viz (ii). Demand Loan Account No.0265306922971 for Rs.2.80,00,000/- in the name of SAHA ENTERPRISE, Proprietor Sri Tridip Saha & Sri Tripan Saha, S/O. Sri Tridip Saha. For this account security pledge was NSC/FD RIP No.0265100476652 for Rs.3,20,000/-. (iii). Demand Loan Account No.0265306930129 for Rs.4,70,000/- in the name of Sri Tridip Saha(the Complainant No.1). For this account 06 Nos. of KVPs bearing No.354624-29 and 01 No. RIP bearing No.0265100446921 and also one LIC Policy with surrender value of Rs.70,000/- were pledged as security. (iv). Cash Credit Loan facility of Rs.7,00,000/- in the name of Sri Tripan Saha(the Complainant No.2). For this account also 02 Nos. of RIPs bearing Nos.0265100487221 & 0265100485951 for Rs.1,20,000/- & Rs.6,63,000/- respectively had been pledged as security.   

 

The Complainants have alleged in their complaint that the Complainant No.1 on 18/06/2016 & thereafter on 09/09/2016 by  two letters requested the O.P. Bank to reduce Cash Credit Limit of his CC A/C No.02652100030006 from Rs.1 crore to Rs.60,00,000/-. Although the O.P. Bank as per statement of accounts reflected in CC A/C No.02652100030006 had received Rs.23,00,000/(amount received from Hindustan Unilever Ltd.)- on 12/05/2016, Rs.2,25,169.98/- on 29/09/2016, Rs.1,06,354/- on 29/09/2016 & Rs.14,85,787.53/- (by encasing liquid security of 13 RIPs) on 25/10/2016 has reduced the credit limit to Rs.80 lacs on 25/10/2016 in stead of Rs.60 lacs as prayed for by the Complainants. According to the Complainants the O.P. Bank has illegally charged interest on the CC A/C No.02652100030006 from 12/05/2016 to 25/10/2016 and thus caused financial loss to the Complainants. 

 

The Complainants in their complaint have also stated that by letter dated 02/03/2017, the complainant No.1 requested the O.P. No.3, the Branch Manager, United Bank of India to unlock the CC A/C No.02652100030006 for doing his business since transaction from the said account had been freezed from January, 2016 on wards without issuing notice to the Complainant. By another letter dated 10/04/2017 the Complainant also requested the said O.P. to reduce the cash credit limit to Rs.60 lacs as he was denied over draft facility of Rs.20 lacs which also caused loss in his business. On 02/11/2018 the Complainant No.1 issued another letter to the O.P. No.3 requesting him to close CC/OD A/C No.02652100030006 and urged for sanctioning a mortgage loan  on encashment of few fixed deposits, the amount of which would be transferred to the account for the purpose of closer of the CC / OD Account. On 30/11/2018 the Complainant No.1 sent a reply in writing to the O.P. No.3 in response to a letter dated 28/11/2018 of the O.P. Bank urging him not to close the Cash Credit Account of the Complainant No.2 Sri Tripan Saha and two demand loan Accounts bearing Nos.0265306930129 & 0265306922971 in the name Complainant No.1 & Jointly in the names of both the Complainants respectively. On 03/12/2018 the Complainant No.1 wrote a letter to the O.P. No.3 requesting him to convert his CC/OD Loan to Term Loan having EMI of not exceeding Rs.65,000/-. On 11/12/2018 the Complainant No.1 by a letter to the O.P. Bank requested to supply him loan sanction order, copies of all correspondences, copies of all documents, bonds, copies of one time settlement scheme in connection with loan accounts Nos.02653069301239, 0265306922971, 0265250928182 & 0265210030006. The Complainant No.1 on 14/12/2018 issued legal notice to the O.P. Bank urging for refund of the excess interest amount charged and converting the CC/OD Loan Account into a Term Loan Account. On 20/12/2018 the Complainant No.1 sent RTI Application to the O.P. Bank requesting to supply the documents asked for by him in the application but no document has been supplied to him. On 21/12/2018 the Complainant No.1 issued legal notice to the O.P. Bank with a request to reduce limit of Cash Credit Amount by 50% so as to enable the Complainants to liquidate two nos. of Demand Loan/OD Loan Accounts within 03 days failing which the Complainants shall approach the Hon'ble Consumer Court praying for appropriate relief and compensation of Rs.5 lac.   By a letter dated 24/12/2018 the Complainant No.2 in connection with his demand loan account No.0265306922971 requested to the O.P. Bank to supply him details of liquid security deposits, which were in custody of the O.P. Bank such as NSC, Fixed Deposit RIP, KVP as described in Sub-Para-xii of Para-8 of the complaint. By letter dated 14/01/2019 the Complainant No.1 requested the O.P. Bank to supply him copies of the statements of accounts in respect of account Nos. 0265306922971, 0265306930129 & 02652100030006. The Complainant No.2 by a letter dated 14/01/2019 requested the O.P. Bank to close his CC A/C No.0265250928182 by liquidating his two Nos. FD's vide Nos.0265100487221 & 0265100485951 in the said letter he also requested to transfer the remaining balance amount to his Bank Account in Canara Bank. The Complainant No.1 by a letter dated 17/01/2019 requested the O.P. Bank to supply him details of the liquid securities (RIP's), details of encashment of Rs.2,58,000/- against which the amounts Rs.29,600/- & Rs.8,380/- were deducted as GST as reflected in the statement of account of SAHA ENTERPRISE. By the said letter the Complainant No.1 also asked for furnishing him details of encashment of Rs.2 lacs, out of which Rs.7,763/- , Rs.8380/- & Rs.8,380/- had been deducted as GST.  By a letter dated 18/01/2019 the Complainant No.1 gave reply to a letter of the O.P. Bank dated 17/01/2019 denying that he and his son, the complainant No.2 had consented to close two accounts. Being vexed with one SMS received from the O.P. Bank wherein it was mentioned that the term deposit account No.XX6652 has been closed prematurely on 18/01/2019, the Complainant  No.2 issued a protest letter addressed to the Branch Manager O.P. No.3 who refused to receive the said protest letter. The Complainant No.2 thereafter sent the letter by E-mail to the Branch Manager and also by registered post endorsing one copy each to the Chairman, UBI and the Regional Manager, UBI, Agartala for information necessary action. 

 

The complainants have further stated in their complaint that they have suffered  financial loss of Rs.9,20,000/- due to delay caused by the O.P. Bank in reducing the over draft limit  against CC A/C No. 02652100030006 of the Complainant No.1. The Complainants are also entitled to get Rs.3,65,000/- which has been prematurely encashed without notice to them as per the SMS communication dated 18/01/2019. According to the Complainants the O.P. Bank had also illegality and unfairly transferred Rs.3,81,931/- from the CC/OD A/C in order to close the Housing Loan Account, thus causing financial loss to the Complainants. The Complainants further alleged that they have suffered financial loss of Rs.3,57,355/- being the excess amount of interest  charged by the O.P. Bank against the Demand Loan A/C No.0265306922971 of both the Complainants for the period from 2011 to 2018. The complainants also alleged in their complaint that demand loan account No. 0265306922971 of Rs.2,80,000/- which was sanctioned and disbursed for only 2 months had resulted into accumulation of outstanding interest at Rs.6,84,798/- as on 2019 which was due to the non-realization of the security pledged with the O.P. Bank.  

 

The complainants in their complaint alleged that the O.P. Bank is guilty of negligence, deficiency of service and are also involved in unfair trade practices as a result of which the complainants suffered financial loss, mental agony and harassment. 

So, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the O.Ps.,  the Complainants have filed the instant complaint before this Forum claiming refund of the interest illegally charged on the over draft account No. 02652100030006, demand loan account Nos.0265306930129 & 0265306922971 amounting to Rs.12,77,355/- & Rs.7 lac as  compensation for causing harassment and mental agony. They also prayed for future interest & litigation costs. 

Both the complainants also prayed for issuing direction to the O.P. Bank to close two demand loan account Nos.026530693021(in the name of the Complainant Sri Tridip Saha) & 0265306922971(in the names of both the Complainants). 

Hence this case. 

 

It deserves mention here that at the time of admitting the complaint this Forum on 25/01/2019 after hearing Learned Advocate for the Complainants and based upon the complaint, issued order U/S 13(3-B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 restraining the O.P. Bank from encashing 02 Nos. of RIP bearing Nos.0265100487894 & 0265100485968 valued Rs.13,41,000/- & Rs.4,49,000/- respectively which have been deposited as security against CC/OD Account No.0265100030006 in the name of SAHA ENTERPRISE, Proprietor being Sri Tridip Saha(the complainant No.1) and also 02 Nos. of RIP bearing Nos. 0265100487221 & 0265100485951 valued Rs.1,21,000/- & Rs.6,63,000/- respectively which have been deposited as security against CC Account No.0265250928182 in the name of Sri Tripan Saha(the complainant No.2) until further order of the Forum.  

 

2. In due course of time notices were duly sent to the O.Ps. from the Forum. 

  The O.P. Nos. 1,2&3 in response to the notices appeared before the Forum through their engaged Advocate. 

All the O.Ps. have jointly filed written objection denying the claim and contentions of the complainants. The O.Ps. in their W.O. challenged the maintainability of the complaint. The O.Ps. have admitted availing of 04 Nos. of Loans by the Complainants from their Bank viz (I). Overdraft Loan Account No.0265210030006 of Rs.80 lacs in the name of M/S. SAHA ENTERPRISE (Proprietor Sri Tridip Saha), (ii). Demand Loan Account No.0265306930129 of Rs.4.70 lacs in the name of Sri Tridip Saha, (iii). Demand Loan Account No.0265306922971 of Rs.2.80 lacs in the names of Sri Tridip Saha & Sri Tripan Saha & (iv). Cash Credit Account No.0265250928182 of Rs.7 lacs in the name of Sri Tripan Saha. The O.Ps. have stated at Para No.7 in their written objection that the Overdraft Account No.0265210030006 of M/S. SAHA ENTERPRISE was under stress and other 03 Loan Account Nos. 0265306930129, 0265306922971 & 0265250928182 were slipped into NPA.  

 

        According to the O.Ps. the Overdraft limit was sanctioned and also enhanced as per the request of the Complainant-borrower No.1 and based on the business transaction as dealer with the Hindustan Lever and also having had considered the satisfactory turn over in the business of the Complainant No.1. The O.Ps. found that the business turn over of the Complainants was gradually decreasing over the time and the terms and conditions of the over draft that was sanctioned are violated by the Complainant No.1. Moreover, the Hindustan Lever Company has ultimately withdrawn their dealership from the Complainant Sri Tridip Saha. Consequently, the business of the Complainant Sri Tridip Saha was badly affected.  As a result the purpose of overdraft facility extended by the O.P. Bank was defeated. According to the O.Ps. the Complainant Sri Tridip Saha ought to have closed the overdraft facility by repaying the full outstanding balance amount along with interest and that without doing so the Complainant resorted to put pressure upon the O.P. Bank for reducing credit limit of the said account. The O.Ps. further stated in their written objection that lowering down of the credit limit is done upon review of the account in terms of performance of the unit, it's turn over, due compliance of the terms and conditions of the sanction of loan,  apart from inspection of the unit / mortgaged properties by the Bank Officials. The O.Ps. alleged that review of the accounts of the Complainant Sri Tridip Saha could not be under taken by the O.P. Bank due to non-cooperation of the Complainant Sri Tridip Saha. Sri Saha did not submit Balance Sheet & IT returns etc. to the O.P. No.3, the Branch Manager, UBI, Teliamura Branch even after being asked for by the Bank. The O.Ps. have admitted about receiving the letter dated 18/06/2016 sent by the Complainant No.1 praying for reducing the credit limit from Rs.1 crore to Rs.60 lacs. They have  admitted Rs.23,000/- having been received by the Complainant No.1 from the Hindustan Uni Lever and got the said amount credited by them in the overdraft account of the Complainant No.1. They have also admitted adjustment of deposits of Rs.2,25,169.98/- on 29/09/2016(by encashing liquid security of Fixed Deposit Certificates), Rs.1,06,354/- on 29/09/2016 & Rs.14,85,787.53/- on 25/10/2016(by encashing liquid security of 13 RIPs of the Complainant) against Overdraft Account of the Complainant No.1. According to the O.Ps. the reduction of the Overdraft limit can not be done by simply adjusting Fixed Deposit Certificates as these are kept as security as per the terms and conditions of the sanctioned loan and that reduction of the limit in the existing Overdraft Account is also done consequent upon review of the account on it's operation, nature of transaction, position of securities and business scale of the Borrower including inspection of the Unit/ mortgaged properties etc. by the Bank Officials. The O.Ps. alleged that the Complainant- Borrower did not furnish the Balance Sheet & IT returns etc. to the O.P. No.3 Branch Manager as per norms of the Bank. The O.Ps. denied charging of excess interest against the Overdraft Account of the Complainant on Post reduction of the Cash Credit Limit from Rs.1 crore to Rs.80 lac on 25/10/2016.

  

         The O.Ps. have denied freezing of the Overdraft Account of the Complainant No.1 by them at any point of time. They have also denied having received the letter dated 10/04/2017 of the Complainant No.1 wherein he had requested to reduce the Overdraft limit to Rs. 60 lacs on ground that the O.P. Bank had refused to provide him Overdraft of Rs.20 lacs.

 

            Both the O.Ps. in their W.O. refused to convert Overdraft Loan of the Complainant No.1 into a term loan or any other facility as this had to be done as per the merit of such proposal and within the ambit of the Bank's Policy guidelines. Moreover, the O.Ps. alleged that the Complainants refused to close / regularize the relevant loans. 

 

        Regarding supply of copies of documents as asked for by the Complainant No.1 by letter dated 11/12/2018, the O.Ps. have stated in their W.O. that the Bank have supplied copies of some of the documents / papers to the Complainant as permissible. 

 

    Regarding the legal notice dated 14/12/2018 of the Complainant No.1, the O.Ps. in their W.O. denied charging of excess interest against the loan account of the Complainant. They have stated that the Bank had charged interest due to the facility availed of by the Complainant as per the terms and conditions of the loan sanction order. According to the O.Ps. conversion of the Overdraft Loan into a Term Loan was not entertained by the O.P. Bank as the Complainant was found irregular in maintaining  his loan account and his conduct was not satisfactory. The Complainant also refused to close / regularize the loan account. As regards the RTI application dated 20/12/2018 of the Complainant, the O.Ps. have stated in their W.O. that the O.P. No.3, the Branch Manager had supplied to the Complainant copies of some documents / papers as permissible.  

 

            Regarding the legal notice dated 21/12/2018, the O.Ps. have stated in their W.O. that they did not act upon the notice as the Complainant had failed to maintain his loan account as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, his unsatisfactory conduct and also on account of his refusal to close / regularize the loan account. 

 

          Regarding the letter dated 24/12/2018 of the Complainant, the O.Ps. have stated in their W.O. that the information about the RIPs was provided to the Complainant No.2 and that KVPs, NSCs have already been liquidated earlier and also that the original KVPs, NSCs had been deposited in the Post Office. 

 

            Regarding the letter dated 14/01/2019 of the Complainant No.2, the O.Ps. have stated in their W.O. that as there was no sufficient amount available in his CC Account, the said Account has not been closed. Moreover, the Complainant No.2 was unwilling to pay the residual amount stood outstanding in the CC Account. The Complainant No.1 was also duly informed about the matter by the O.P. Bank. 

 

            As regards the letter dated 17/01/2019 of the Complainant No.1 , the O.Ps. have stated that as the account of the O.P. No.1, SAHA ENTERPRISE was on the verge of becoming non-performing asset (NPA) and in order to maintain the same as performing asset, the liquid securities as mentioned in the letter had been adjusted against the account by exercising Bank's right of general lien on the securities. It is also stated that the amounts Rs.29,600/-& Rs.8,380/- were deducted being the annual review charges and quarterly supervision charges of the Overdraft Account as per the circular of the Bank dated 28/06/2017. It is further stated by the O.Ps. that the amounts of Rs.7,763/-, Rs.8,380/- & Rs.8,380/- were deducted as quarterly supervision charges which were not realized for the month of March,2017 quarter, September,2017 quarter & December,2017 quarter respectively as detected by the Revenue Auditor of the O.P. Bank.  

 

                  Regarding the letter dated 18/01/2019, the O.Ps. have stated in their W.O. that the O.P. No.3, the Branch Manager by his letter dated 17/01/2019 had informed both the Complainants that the demand loan stood in their names has already been slipped in to NPA and that if the over due amount including interest is not paid to the Bank, then the Bank will compelled to adjust the liquid security against the loan account. It is also stated by the O.Ps. in their W.O. that the Complainants in spite of having been informed about it did not bother to repay the amount. So the O.P. Bank having found no other alternative has closed the term deposit as per Bank's Policy vide circular No.RMD/CRM POLICY/9/OM-304/18-19 dated 01/08/2018.

 

            Regarding the transfer of Rs.3,81,931/- from the OD Account to close the Housing Loan Account as alleged by the Complainant, the O.Ps. have stated in their W.O. that it was done as per request of the Complainant and consequent upon the cheque No.86174 dated 22/07/2011 issued by the Complainant.               

 

            Denying any sort of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as alleged by the Complainants, the O.Ps. urged that they have acted as per the guidelines, circulars issued from time to time by the Bank and having had found that the Loan Accounts of the Complainants turned into NPA. The O.Ps. have thus prayed for dismissal of  the complaint with costs.      

                       

EVIDENCE ADDUCE BY THE PARTIES:-

3. The Complainant No.2 Sri Tripan Saha examined himself as PW-I and submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit. He has produced 22 documents comprising 48 sheets. The documents on identification have been marked as Exhibit – 1 Series. The Complainant No.2 was also cross examined by the O.P. side. 

  On behalf of the O.Ps.  Sri Ashish Mathew Samuel, the Branch Manager, UBI, Teliamura Branch has been examined as witness and submitted his Examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit.  In support of his case he has produced 09 documents comprising 65 sheets. The documents on identification have been marked as Exhibit – A Series. He was also cross examined by the Complainant side. 

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

  (i) Whether there was deficiency of service and unfair trade practice indulged in by the O.Ps. towards the Complainants?

  (ii) Whether the complainants are entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for?  

                         

5. DECISION   AND  REASONS  FOR  DECISIONS:- 

      We have heard arguments from both sides. We have also perused the written arguments submitted by Learned Advocates of the complainants and that of the O.Ps. We have perused the citation referred to by Learned Advocate for the Complainants. 

We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties, the evidence, both documentary and oral adduced by both sides. 

While arguing the case Learned Advocate appearing for the Complainants contended that the Complainants being the Account Holders of the O.P. Bank were not satisfied in the manner the O.P. Bank had dealt with the 04 nos. of Loan Accounts of the Complainants. Being dissatisfied with the services rendered by the O.P. Bank, the Complainants filed the Consumer complaint before the Forum. The dominant purpose behind purchasing of the Banking service has no link with their commercial activity. Hence, Learned Advocate argued that the Complainants are consumers as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He has referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court  reported in MANU PATRA/SC/1574/2019(PARA-7).

 

Learned Advocate argued that the O.P. Bank did not reduce the Cash Credit Limit in CC A/C No.265210030006 in the name of SAHA ENTERPRISE, Proprietor being Sri Tridip Saha (the Complainant No.1) from Rs.1 crore to Rs.60 lacs in spite of the letter dated 18/06/2016 of the Complainant No.1 received by the O.P. No.3. It is also argued that though the O.P. Bank received Rs.23 lacs on 12/05/2016, Rs.2,25,169.98/- on 25/10/2018 & Rs.1,06,354/- on 29/09/2016 in the said CC A/C. the Cash Credit Limit was not reduced to Rs.60 lacs. According to the Learned Advocate the O.P. Bank has deliberately suppressed material facts in dealing with the CC Account of the Complainants and this amounts to deficiency of service. The O.P. Bank also deliberately did not pay any hid to the legal notice of the Complainant dated 14/12/2018 wherein the Complainant urged for refund of the excess amount charged and for converting the CC OD Loan Account into a Term Loan Account. The O.P. Bank also did not supply information as per RTI application dated 20/12/2018 filed before them by the Complainant. Learned Advocate by referring to the Overdraft A/C No.0265306922971 of both the Complainant has argued that the Loan Account was for Rs.2,80,000/- with a tenure of  two months as per sanction letter dated 12/02/2011 but the O.P. Bank did not close the loan account despite having sufficient hypothecated Fixed Deposit Certificates of the Complainants lying with them. The outstanding dues has accumulated to Rs.6,85,055/- as on 05/12/2018. The Bank ultimately adjusted the Fixed Deposit Certificates much letter and it was shown on 18/01/2019. According to the Learned Advocate this is also an act of deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. Bank towards the Complainants. 

 

Learned Advocate by referring to the Overdraft A/C No.0265306930129 in the name of Sri Tridip Saha which was sanctioned for Rs.4,70,000/- with a tenure of 03 months as per sanction letter dated 28/08/2014, Learned Advocated contended that the O.P. Bank did not close the loan account within the tenure of the loan despite they were having sufficient hypothecated Fixed Deposit Certificates, 06 Nos. KVPs & LIC Policies of the Complainant Sri Tridip Saha. Learned Advocate further contended that the outstanding dues has accumulated to Rs.4,12,932.70/- as on 05/12/2018. The Bank has encashed Rs.2,32,181.80/- by adjusting some liquid securities on 02/07/2015. According to the Learned Advocate  for the Complainants, the O.P. Bank should have adjusted all the liquid securities and closed the loan account as per sanction letter. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. Bank, the Complainants' Counsel pointed out. 

 

By referring to the CC A/C No.0265250928182 in the name of Sri Tripan Saha, the Complainant No.2, Learned Advocate has argued that the O.P. Bank despite having sufficient liquid securities against the said loan account did not close the account and deliberately classified the said account as NPA which amounts to deficiency of service. 

 

Learned Advocate urged that the Complainants have succeeded in establishing their complaint U/S12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The O.Ps. , according to the Learned Advocate for the Complainants are guilty of committing deficiency of service and also they have indulged in unfair trade practices. 

 

He has thus prayed for granting compensation in favour of the Complainants and also other relief as prayed for in the complaint.  

Per-contra Learned Advocate for the O.P. Bank has argued that due to the latches, negligence and non-compliance of terms and conditions in the loan sanction orders of the over draft account  No.0265210030006, Demand Loan A/C No. 0265306930129 in the name of the Complainant No.1, Demand Loan A/C. No. 0265306922971 in the names of both the Complainants & CC A/C. No. 0265250928182 in the name of the Complainant No.2 were slipped into NPA. Both the complainants have failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the loan sanction orders as to repaying the loan amounts in spite of instructions given by the O.P. Bank.

Regarding reduction of the overdraft limit in overdraft A/C. No. 0265210030006 of the complainant No.1, Learned Advocate has contended that enhancement or reduction of limit is done as per request of the Borrower and also based on business viability of the Borrower, regularity regarding repayment of the loan amount towards the loan account and propensity of the Borrower inclosing the loan account with interest. The O.P. Bank had found that the business turnover of the Complainant No.1 was gradually decreasing over the time. The Hindustan lever who had been doing business with the Complainants for years together has withdrawn the dealership from the Complainant No.1. It was further detected by the O.P. Bank that the Complainant No.1 has indulged in diversion of the Loan Amount so sanctioned and disbursed under the Overdraft Account No. 0265210030006 for the purpose of buying Insurance Policies, purchasing of properties in Teliamura, landing amounts in the un-organized sector and also for obtaining distributorship of Gopal Zarda.   

According to the O.P. Bank Cash Credit Loan in A/C. No. 0265210030006 was sanctioned in favour of the Complainant No.1 solely for the purpose of business of the Complainant regarding dealership with the Hindustan Lever. That Purpose was found to have been defeated when it was detected that the Hindustan Lever had withdrawn their dealership from the Complainant. The Complainant Borrower in such a situation aught to have closed the said CC Account by repaying the outstanding amount along with interest but instead of doing so the Complainant No.1 was pressurizing the O.P. Bank for reduction of the Cash Credit Limit.  Learned Advocate appearing for the O.Ps. also argued that reduction of limit is done upon review of the account including inspection of the unit/mortgaged properties by the Bank Officers. In the case of the Complainant No.1, review of his CC Account could not be taken up  as the Complainant-Borrower did not submit the required papers such as Balance Sheet, IT Returns etc. to the O.P. No.3 despite reminders given to the Complainant No.1. Moreover, on inspecting the Unit of the complainant, no stock was found there whereas Cash Credit Loan was granted to the Complainant No.1 for the purpose of maintaining stock in connection with his business. This indicates that the Complainant furnished fake stock statements to the O.P. Bank  on many occasions.    

 

Regarding the prayer of the Complainants for converting the Overdraft Loan Account into Term Loan Account it has been argued by Learned Advocate for the O.Ps. that conversion facility is extended to a Borrower provided the Borrower had regularized all the related loan accounts and also satisfactory conduct of the Borrower. The O.P. Bank could not consider the conversion prayer as the Complainants refused to close / regularize the related loan /loans. Learned Advocate further argued that reduction of limit can not be done simply by adjusting fixed deposit certificates as these are kept as security as per the terms and conditions of the sanctioned loan and it is also the discretionary power of the Competent Authority of the Bank as to whether adjustment against securities would be done or not.  Moreover, the CC Account of the complainant No.1 is under high stress and was on the verge of turning into a NPA. Besides this, as per serial No. 5.6 in the circular contained under the Policy on Credit Risk Mitigation and Collateral Management 2016-2017 issued by the O.P. Bank, it has been mentioned that “The branch shall encash the liquid securities at the earliest opportunity on Borrowal Account becoming non-performing assets”. It was argued that the O.P. Bank had intimated the Complainants about the such policy of the Bank. Regarding charging of interest on the Loan Accounts, Learned Advocate for the the O.P. Bank argued that the interest was charged as per the terms and conditions of the loan sanctioned order. Hence, there is no unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P. Bank. As regards furnishing of documents / information as per RTI application it has been argued that the O.P. No.3 had supplied copies of some documents / papers to the Complainants  as permissible.    

 

Regarding closer of Cash Credit Limit of the Complainant No.2, Learned Advocate for the O.P. Bank contended that as there was no sufficient amount available with the Complainant No.2-Borrower  and since the said Borrower was not ready to deposit the residual balance amount, the CC Account could not be closed and the matter was duly intimated to the Complainant No.2 by the Bank. 

Regarding different charges levied by the O.P. Bank, it was argued that Rs.2,96,000/- was deducted from the overdraft Account of the complainant No.1 being the Annual Review charges which was applicable to the said account as per the circular of the Banks' Service Charges vide No.O&M/SC/6/0M-226/17-18 dated 28/06/2017. It was also argued that Rs.8380/- was the quarterly supervision charges which was applicable to the said account for March ,2018 quarter as per the said circular. Other deducted amounts of Rs.7763/-, Rs.8380/- & Rs.8380/- were the quarterly supervision charges which had not been realized from the account previously for March, 2017 quarter, September,2017 quarter & December,2017 quarter respectively as detected by the Revenue Auditor of the Bank. 

Regarding the demand loans of the Complainants turning into NPA, it was argued by Learned Advocate for the O.P. Bank that the complainant Borrowers had failed to meet up the outstanding balance in the loan accounts. Even they did not bother to contact the Bank immediately after expiry of one year of sanction of the loans. They also did not feel it necessary to inquire about the status of the loan accounts in time and also to take initiative in repaying the loan amounts including interest. The O.P. Bank had however by letter dated 17/01/2019 intimated the Complainants about the demand Loan Accounts having turned into  NPA.  

 

About the allegations regarding the closer of Housing Loan, it was argued on behalf of the O.P. Bank that transferring of Rs.381931/- from the OD Account for closing the Housing Loan Account was done on the request of the Complainant Borrower and in obedience to the cheque No.86174 dated 22/07/2011 which was issued by the Complainant Borrower himself. 

 

Regarding Bank's action on Mortgaged Property it has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps. that in the event of an account turns into NPA, the Bank has a right to adjust the liquid securities as available with the Bank and also to take action as per provisions laid down under

 

SARFAESI Act. 

Denying any sort of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, Learned Advocate has concluded his argument by stating that the O.P. Bank had acted as per the guidelines & circulars issued by the O.P. Bank from time to time and dealt with the Loan Accounts of the Complainants accordingly.  

 

He has thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

We have considered the arguments advance by both sides' Advocates. 

We find from the written objection of the O.Ps. that out of 04 loans sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the Complainants, three loans vide Loan Account Nos.0265306930129, 0265306922971 & 0265250928182 were slipped into NPA. We also find from the evidence-in-chief of the OPW (O.P. No.3, the Branch Manager) that apart from the above loan accounts, another Loan Account (Cash Credit Loan) vide No.0265210030006 has also slipped into NPA. The assertion of the O.Ps. that all the four loans which had been sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the Complainant-Borrowers having been slipped into NPA has not been controverted / denied by the Complainants. The OPW has also not been cross examined by the Complainants' side about it. 

We find force in the arguments advanced by the Learned Advocate for the O.Ps. that the Complainants did not comply with the terms and conditions in the loan sanctioned orders particularly about repayment of the loan amounts including interest. The Complainants in their complaint have not stated that they have adhered to the terms and conditions upon which the impugned loans were sanctioned and disbursed in their favour.

 

From the pleading of the O.Ps. as well as evidence adduced by the OPW(the O.P. No.3, the Branch Manager) it is also established that the Complainants did not cooperate with the O.P. Bank after the Loan Amount have been disbursed. Even the purpose for which the Cash Credit Loan under A/C. No.0265210030006 which was disbursed in favour of the Complainant No.1 has been frustrated / defeated when the Hindustan Lever Company has withdrawn their dealership from the Complainant No.1. The business viability of the Complainants on review by the O.P. Bank found to have not been flourishing. The Complainant instead of repaying the loan amount started to put pressure upon the O.P. Bank to reduce the Cash Credit limit  from Rs.1 crore to Rs.60 lacs in Cash Credit Loan A/C. No. 0265210030006.  

We find that the Cash Credit Limit under CC A/C. No. 0265210030006 in the name of the Complainant No.1 has been reduced by the O.P. Bank to Rs.60 lacs from Rs.1 crore after a considerable amount got credited into the said account lastly on 29/09/2016. The O.P. Bank has reduced the Cash Credit Limit to Rs.80 lacs on 20/10/2016. We do not find that there was inordinate delay committed by the O.P. Bank for reducing the limit. Moreover, lowering down of the credit limit is done upon review of the account in terms of performance of the unit, it's turn over, due compliance of the terms and conditions of the loan sanction order,  apart from inspection of the unit / mortgaged properties by the Bank Officials. 

 

The O.Ps. have emphatically stated in their W.O. as well as in evidence-in-chief that review of the account of the Complainant Sri Tridip Saha could not be under taken by the O.P. Bank due to non-cooperation of the Complainant. Sri Saha did not submit Balance Sheet & IT returns etc. to the O.P. No.3, the Branch Manager, UBI, Teliamura Branch even after being asked for by the O.P. Bank. This assertion of the O.P. Bank has not been denied / controverted by the Complainants. 

 

Regarding reluctance of the O.P. Bank about non-Conversion of the Overdraft Loan of the Complainant No.1 into a Term Loan or any other facility, we find that the O.P. Bank has rightly decided that it could be done as per the merit of such proposal and within the ambit of the Bank's Policy guidelines. Moreover, the Complainants were allegedly refused to close / regularize the relevant loans. According to us the O.P. Bank did not commit any wrong in refusing to entertain the prayer of the Complainants for converting the Overdraft Loan of the Complainants into  Term Loan. 

 

From the pleadings of the O.Ps. as well as from their evidence we are satisfied that on account of the Complainants' latches, negligence & non-adherence to the terms and conditions in the loan sanctioned orders, all the impugned loans accounts of the Complainants have been turned into NPA. We do not find any deficiency of service and indulging in unfair trade practice of the O.Ps. in dealing with all the impugned loans accounts of the Complainants. 

 

According to us the O.P. Bank had acted as per their guidelines and based on their commercial judgment and with a specified framework. It would be improper on our part to interfere with the bonafide action of the Bank. Moreover, we find that all the Loan Accounts of the Complainants have already turned into NPA. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the action taken by  the O.P. Bank. 

In view of the discussion made above we find and hold that the Complainants have failed to establish their complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.Ps. as we do not find any deficiency of service and indulging in unfair trade practice by the O.P. Bank towards the Complainants. 

 

    Both the issues are decided accordingly against the Complainants.    

 

    We accordingly dismiss the Complaint filed by the Complainants. Consequently, the interim order dated 25/01/2019 passed by this Forum in this case stands vacated.  

There is no order as to costs. 

 

        Announced.

 

SRI  BAMDEB  MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

SRI  UMESH  DAS

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

 WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR  BINDU  PAL

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA