MR. KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI

This is an appeal preferred under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the final order and judgment dated 18/08/2022, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Coochbehar in CC Case- CC/112/2019.

Brief facts of the appellant case are that, the respondent/complainant, an unemployed person after taking training of ‘Pati Shilpi’ had been issued identity card and DIC Grant loan from the office of the Development Commissioner Handicraft. The said loan had been said before the appellant bank and after full inquiry and verification, the appellant bank on being satisfied had sanctions Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) only, as Term Loan under ‘Mudra Loan’, for five years, with EMI @ Rs. 800/- per month with interest of 10.7%. The appellant bank had credited the loan amount in the respondent/complainant’s, SB account No. 2266162997. As per terms and condition the respondent/complainant paid EMI in the loan account no. 3506643050 @ Rs. 800/- per month, at the same time the appellant bank deducted from the respondent/complainant’s SB account by the above amount.

On 25/05/2018, the appellant bank Branch Manager asked the respondent/complainant to visit the bank with the original sanction letter and whimsically ‘pen through’ over the EMI amount Rs. 800/- and imposed 1080. This action of the appellant bank was totally illegal and grossly negligent on the part of the appellant bank. The respondent/complainant intended to lodge written complaint, but the appellant bank did not receive the same and sent the same through registered post on 11/12/2018, but with no result.

The respondent/complainant, thereafter, approached the Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice, Coochbehar and in the mediation, the appellant bank admitted that Rs. 800/- had been inadvertently mention. Thus, due to such activities on the part of the appellant bank, the respondent/complainant was forced to lost the instant complaint with necessary prayers. Hence this case.

The appellant bank contested the case by filing written version wherein, they have mentioned, that the respondent/complainant had been aware all along, that the EMI of Rs. 800/- would not even be sufficient to re-pay the principal amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) only, let alone the interest component. Thus, the question of gross negligence and deficiency service did not arise and therefore, the question of attracting the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Both the parties have examined one witness each and furnished certain documents.

After going through the evidence on record and on hearing the Ld. Advocates for both the sides, the Ld. DCDRF, Coochbehar, passed the impugned order, wherein, the appellant bank was directed to pay Rs. 40,000/-( forty thousand) only, as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) only, as litigation cost payable within 30 days from the date of passing of the award failing which, the awarded amount would attract interest @ 6% per annum till the date of realization.

Decision with reason

The Ld. Advocate for the appellant had submitted at the time of final hearing, that the loan amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) only, which had been granted to the respondent/complainant was re-payable in 60 months or 5 years and the EMI amount of Rs. 800/- would not be enough to satisfy the principal amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) only, as only Rs. 48,000/- (Forty-eight thousand) only, would be recovered and the interest component would be left unpaid. He had also submitted, that the above loan had been sanctioned against interest @ 10.7% per annum and the same was known to the respondent/ complainant, which had not been considered by the Ld. Forum below while passing the impugned judgment. Moreover, he had submitted, that the respondent/complainant already discharge the Term Loan liability by entering into a onetime settlement with the appellant bank under the NDND OTS -2021-22 scheme of the appellant bank, which had been completed by the payment Rs. 7507/-, on 19/08/2021, and there was no outstanding left to be paid by the respondent/complainant. Hence the impugned judgment and final order dated 18/08/2022, had been passed long after the Term Loan account had been closed and therefore, there was no cause of action and the case was liable to be rejected, as per the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the CPC and relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court in Bharat Aluminum Company Vs. Kaiser Aluminum Technical Services {(2012) 9 Supreme Court cases 552}. That apart he had submitted, that there had been no issue framed to decide whether any deficiency of service or goods had been present. He therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order.

The respondent/complainant had argued in person and also filed a written argument wherein, he has mentioned that and order to receive ‘Pati Shilpi’ Loan from the appellant bank, which had been subsidized by Rs. 2,000/- by the DIC office against Loan of Rs. 50,000/-   with the EMI fixed at Rs. 800/- for 5 years, amounting to Rs. 48,000/-     and loan had been granted on 15/12/2015. After re-paying the loan from 18/01/2016 till 26/09/2016, suddenly Rs. 3,000/- had been deducted from this bank account by the appellant bank. On inquiring from the Branch Manager of the appellant bank again EMI @ Rs. 800/- per month was fixed for further two years. When the new Branch Manager joined in the appellant bank, he had informed that EMI @ Rs. 1080/- per month would have to be paid and he informed that he would be unable to re-pay at that rate. Thereafter, he stopped re-paying the loan. He then approached the Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice, Coochbehar, where one mediation was held between the parties and the same failed. On 03/12/2019, he then approached the Ld. DCDRF and as per his Advocate’s advice, he deposited Rs. 48,000/- of the loan amount. The Branch Manager had withdrawn the subsidy from his account. The Branch Manager of the appellant bank used to threaten him from time to time and caused many obstructions following which, he could not even update his KYC in other banks.  Branch Manager further intimated, that the loan amount would be satisfied or payment of Rs. 7507/- and he had paid the above amount on 19/08/2021, and had received a certificate to that effect. He then prays for compensation for mental agony and pain.

After hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it transpires that the factual aspects are more or less undisputed. The only argument raised by the appellant is that, the respondent/complainant was aware of the error due to inadvertence in the amount of Rs. 800/-, as EMI in place of Rs. 1080/-. In this regard, it can be stated that simply by stating, that the EMI of Rs. 800/- had been fixed due to inadvertence does not absolve the appellant bank from owning the error caused. That apart the procedure for rectifying such error also was not resorted to and trampled upon the natural justice of the respondent/complainant. Secondly simply because the loan amount had been satisfied on the basis of the scheme offered to the respondent/complainant, prior to the delivery of the impugned order does not mean that no cause of action was available to the respondent/complainant to the filing of the instant case below. Because, as already discussed above the error had been caused knowingly or unknowingly and to rectify  such error no proper procedure  had been followed and thereby, bull-dozed the natural rights of the respondent/complainant, for which a cause of action arose and therefore, the citation relied by the appellant bank in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Bharat Aluminum Company Vs. Kaiser Aluminum Technical Services {(2012) 9 Supreme Court cases 552}, also do not come to the rescue of the appellant bank.

Moreover, there is nothing in the impugned order passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Coochbehar, which calls for interference from this bank. However, considering the error, which appears to be innocuous and genuine and done without any malicious intent, the total amount of award being Rs. 45,000/- (Fort five thousand) in the impugned judgment appears to be on the higher side, considering that, we are dealing with public money and therefore same needs to be modified and for the reasons the amount stands modified to Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) only, which would be the total amount of award payable by the appellant bank, with the other conditions of the impugned order remaining unaltered.

As a result, the appeal succeeds in part.

It is therefore,

Ordered

That the appeal be and the same is allowed in part on contest, but without costs.

The impugned order stands modified to the extent, that the award payable in total by the appellant bank would be Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) only, instead of Rs. 45,000/- (forty-five thousand) only, with the other conditions of the impugned order remaining unaltered.

Copy of the judgment be handed over to the parties free of costs.

Copy of the judgment be also sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Coochbehar, for necessary information.