IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/67/2017
Date of Filing: 26.04.2017 Date of Final Order: 30.08.2018
Complainant: Emdadul Haque S/O Late Bokiatulla Mondal
Residing at Vill.- Uttarpara More, P.O:- Radharghat,
P.S. Berhampore Town, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin- 742187
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1) The Chief Manager, State Bank of India
Berhampore Branch, P.O.- Berhampore, P.S.- Berhampore
Town, Dist.- Murshidabad, Pin- 742101
2) The Devisional Engineer
W.B.S.M.I.C. Ltd. Berhampore Murshidabad,
Agri-Engg. Building, Ground Floor,
Station Road, P.O.- Berhampore,
Dist.-Murshidabad Pin-742101
P.S.- Berhampore
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri Rajdip Goswami
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri Satinath Chandra
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati…………………. President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty ……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
This is an application under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Emadadul Haque (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Chief Manager State Bank of India Berhampore Branch and the Divisional Engineer WBSMIC Ltd. Berhampore, Murshidabad (here in after referred to as the OPs) alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the Complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant was an employee of the Sub-divisional Engineer of WBSMIC Ltd. at Berhampore when he along with 13 other employees took personal loan from the OP No.1 in 2008 as per consent letter of the OP No.2 dated 22.11.07. On the basis of the sanction letter, the Complainant received personal loan amounting Rs. 203000/- and the DDO had given a consent to the Bank that EMI including interest of loan amount to be deducted from the monthly salary of the Complainant and the other employees. Accordingly the DDO deducted at the rate of Rs.5421/- per month since Jan, 2008 to Dec, 2011 from the salary of the Complainant and issued copy of pay slip month by month to the Complainant. Now it came to the knowledge of the Complainant that the DDO Office though deducted the EMI from the salary of the Complainant failed to sent 3 EMI to the Bank in time and for the same Bank had deducted Rs. 3050/- from his SBI Berhampore Branch Account No. 30289029120, Rs. 4000/- form account No. 31773753181 of SBI Sekhpara Branch in the name of Bota Bokiatulla Junior High Madrasah and Rs.2152/- in SBI, ADB Berhampore Branch being Account No. 11176130186 illegally without any notice to the Complainant. After seeing the Pass Book noting of those accounts, the Complainant became surprised and he came to know that the DDO failed to deposit 3 EMI of his loan account and Bank deducted the outstanding of his loan amount from those 3 accounts. The DDO sent Rs. 16263/- for the said 3 EMI only along with other outstanding dues of other employees at a total amount of Rs. 104547/- on 06.12.16 to SBI Berhampore Branch by issuing a cheque drawn on UBI Berhampore Branch vide cheque No. 620440. The Bank has not yet credited the amount of Rs. 16263/- to the account of the Complainant. The Complainant retired from his service in Feb,2013. The Bank has not given any notice or information either to the DDO or to the Complainant regarding non-receipt of EMI. There is no fault on the part of the Complainant. The OPs have deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
The Complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to adjust Rs. 16263/- which was sent by the OP No.2 to the OP No.1 and Rs.9202/- in illegal detection from 3 accounts along with interest at the rate of 10% per month , Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- for litigation cost against the OPs.
The OP No. 1 put his appearance on 04.07.2017 and filed written version on 24.10.2017. The OP No.2 received notice on 11.05.2017 but did not turn up.
The OP No.1 has asserted in its written version that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no cause of action against the OP No.1 and the case is barred by law of limitation. It is the specific case of the OP No.1 that the loan of the Complainant was sanctioned on 19.12.2007 and disbursed on 20.12.2007and as per settlement between the parties, the loan was repayable by installments @ Rs. 5421/- p.m. payable by 5th day of every month and the borrower would pay the increased interest due to change of interest from time to time. The outstanding balance of Rs. 7891.96/- was due as on 09.01.2012 and the outstanding balance was increased to the tune of Rs. 14077.76/- as on 31.10.2015. But the Complainant was negligent to repay the outstanding amount .That after deduction from other accounts of the Complainant and after charging interest, the outstanding balance stood at Rs. 7265/- as on 28.12.2016 that the Divisional Engineer WBSMIC Ltd. Berhampore issued cheque being No. 620440 dated 06.12.2016 amounting Rs.1,04,547/- in respect of personal loan accounts of his employees but the said amount was not sufficient to liquidate the outstanding balances of the borrowers. In spite of that the Bank authority had adjusted the outstanding balance by reducing the interest portion and closed those accounts by reducing the amount of Rs.11,550/-. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1. The OP No.1 has prayed for rejection of the complaint.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case.
Points for decision
- Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decisions with reasons
Point No.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer of the OP No.1 as he hired the services of the OP No.1 for taking personal loan. It is argued that the OP No.2 gave consent letter dated 22.11.2007 to the OP No.1 for realization of the EMI from the lonees and to remit the same to the OP No.1 but the OP No.2 did not remit 3 EMIs of the Complainant. It is submitted that the Complainant is a consumer of the OPs in terms of the provision of the CP Act, 1986.
The Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 submits that the Complainant is not a consumer under the OP No.1 and the Complainant failed and neglected to repay the loan amount in terms of sanction.
We have gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence adduced by both parties and the documents submitted by both sides. We have also gone through the written argument submitted by both sides.
The Complainant took personal loan from the OP No.1 amounting Rs. 2,03,000/- and it was agreed by the DDO that the EMI of the loan amount was to be deducted from their monthly salary. Therefore, it is clear that the Complainant hired the services of the OP No.1 by taking personal loan.
The OP No.2 is the employer of the Complainant and he was the DDO of the Complainant during the period of his service and the Complainant retired from service in Feb,13. There is no evidence that the Complainant hired/availed the service of the OP No.2 for a consideration. Therefore, it can be safely held that the Complainant is a consumer under the OP No.1 in terms of the provision of the CP Act , 1986 but he is not a consumer under the OP No.2.
Point No.2
It is submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum. It is argued that there is a consumer dispute between the parties.
In reply the Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 submits that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
On going through the entire materials on record, we find that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Point No.3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the OP No.2 used to deduct EMI from the salary of the Complainant but failed to deposit 3 EMIs for the months of April,2009, Dec,2010 and March,2011 amounting Rs. 16,263/- and ultimately sent a letter dated 06.12.2016 along with a cheque amounting Rs.1,04,547/- to the OP No.1 for regularization of the defaulted amount. He argueds that the OP No.1 had not issued any notice either to the Complainant or to the OP No.2 alleging default and the Complainant was not aware of the fact of non-deposit of EMIs.
It is contended that the Complainant was very much surprised to note that the OP No.1 deducted Rs.3050/- from his SBI account being No.30289029120, Rs. 4000/- from account being No.31773753181 in the name of Bota Bokiatulla junior High Madrasah and Rs.2152/- in his SBI account being No. 11176130186. He argues that the OP No.1 has deficiency in service for debiting the amounts without consent of the Complainant. It is further urged that the OP No.1 has not adjusted the amount of Rs. 16,263/- received from the OP No.2 through cheque. He contends that the OP No.1 has deficiency in service and the Complainant is entitled to get relief.
In reply the Ld. Advocate for the OP. No.1 submits that the Bank has genera lien under section 171 of the Indian Contract Act and the Bank has every authority to adjust the due amount from any of the accounts of the loanee under the control of the Bank. He argues that the OP No.1 has rightly exercised its option under general lien by debiting some amount from 3 accounts of the Complainant.
We have gone through the entire materials on record. Admittedly, the Complainant took personal loan of Rs. 2,03,000/- from the OP Bank on the basis of sanctioned letter. Admittedly, the OP No.2 realized the EMIs from the salary of the Complainant but failed to deposit 3 EMIs in time. Admittedly, the OP No.2 vide its letter dated 06.12.2016 admitted his latches and sent the total amount of Rs. 1,04,547/- to the OP No. 1 through a cheque without any additional interest for delayed deposit. The Complainant retired from service in Feb,2013 but he did not visit the OP No.1 for clearance certificate of his personal loan in spite of fact that his last installment was due on 30.12.2011.
The OP No.1 deducted Rs. 9202/- from 3 savings accounts being No.3028902920, 31773753181 and 11176130186. It is clear from the xerox copies of Pass Book of the said 3 savings accounts that the savings account being No. 31773753181 is in the name of Bota Bokiatulla Junior High Madrasah and other two accounts were in the name of the Complainant.
On a careful consideration, we find valid substance in the argument of the Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 that the OP No.1 has right to exercise general lien under section 171 of Indian Contract Act over the assets of the Complainant but it is difficult to consume that the OP Bank has authority to debit any amount from the account not in the name of the Complainant without giving any notice to the account holder.
It is clear from the submission of both sides that the OP No.1 never issued any notice upon the Complainant/OP No.2 intimating the fact of non-repayment of the loan amount but the OP No.1 had debited Rs.4000/- from account being No. 31773753181 in the name of Bota Bokiatulla Junior High Madrasah on 02.03.2016 without giving any notice to the account holder. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that debiting of Rs. 4000/- on 02.03.2016 from the account of Bota Bokiatulla Junior High Madrasah without intimating the account holder is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1. We do not find any irregularity of illegality from debiting the amounts from two accounts of the Complainant for adjustment of his loan amount.
The Complainant was not vigil about the status of his personal loan for a long period. It is not only a duty of the OP No.1 to intimate the due amounts to the Complainant but it was also the duty of the Complainant to take information about the status of his personal loan from the OP No.1.
The OP No.2 did not deposit 3 installments of the Complainant and other employees to the OP No.1 in due time. This Forum finds no ground to issue any direction upon the OP No. 2 as the Complainant has not hired/availed services of the OP No.2 for a consideration.
We think that the OP No.1 may be directed to pay Rs. 4000/- as compensation for deficiency in service. We find no justification to pass any order as to litigation cost as the Complainant was not vigil about his personal loan for a long period. The case was filed on 26.04.2017 and admitted on 09.05.2017. After receipt of notice, the OP No.1 put his appearance and filed written version on 24.10.2017 but the OP No.2 did not turn up in spite of receipt of notice on 11.05.2017 (as per signature appeared in the postal AD).
Reasons for Delay
This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the case succeeds in part.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
that the complaint case No. 67/2017 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP No.1 without cost and dismissed against the OP No.2 without cost. The OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs. 4000/- as compensation to the Complainant by 60 days from the date of this order, failing which the OP No.1 shall have to pay simple interest @ 10% per annum till realization of the entire amount.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected
President.
Member President.
