Case No. CC/ 22/2020
FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT
Sudeb Mitra, President:-
The complaint case in short is that the complt. Nagesur Subudhi had taken ‘House Building loan’ from the O.P. S.B.I., Kharagpur, I.I.T. branch to the tune of Rs- 2,71,000/- as the O.P. agreed to his proposal.
A loan agreement dtd. 19.05.2004 was entered into by the contesting parties and it was fixed that the interest on that loan amount will be charged at the rate of 8.25% on highest monthly reducing balance at quarterly rate. A loan A/C bearing no HBL A/C no 01593029995 was created.
It was determined that E.M.I. of loan amount will be started to be paid from April 2005 @ Rs- 2,630/- per month and that will continue up to March 2020, i.e. the repayment of loan will be paid @ Rs- 2,630/- per month from the month of April 2005 to March 2020, covering a span of 180 months.
The complt. asserts that in April 2005 he could ascertain instead of deduction of Rs- 2,630/- per month as E.M.I., O.P. was deducting Rs- 3,000/- per month as E.M.I. for repayment purpose from his A/C. A complaint case no 30/2009 was filed before this D.C.D.R.C. and on verbal assurance of the O.P. that proceeding was not continued by the complt. and that case was dismissed for non prosecution at the instance of the complainant.
This is forthcoming from the complt’s contention that thereafter the O.P. began to start deducting Rs- 2,555/- per month from July 2009 as E.M.I. for repayment of complt’s loan from the O.P. and that practice continued up to March 2020.
This is the complt’s case that the complt. had in total paid 51 E.M.I. @ Rs- 3,000/- per month i.e. from April 2005 to June 2009 = Rs- 1,53,000/-(Rs-3,000 x 51 months) and 129 E.M.I. of Rs- 2,555/- per month from July 2009 up to March 2020, i.e. in total Rs- 2,555/- x 129 months= Rs- 3,29,595/- i.e. in total Rs- 1,53,000+3,29,595 =Rs- 4,82,595/- though he was scheduled to pay Rs- 4,73,400/- as repayment of loan by paying Rs- 2,630/- per month x 180 months.
Contd…3
-3-
It is specific contention of the complt. that he had paid up Rs- 4,82,595 – 4,73,400= Rs- 9,195/- in excess and besides that 03(three) extra installments were deducted @ Rs- 2,555/- from April 2020 to June 2020 i.e. Rs- 2,555 x 3= Rs- 7,665/- by the O.P. from the complt.
Now by filing the instant complaint, the complt. has prayed for Rs- 9,195 + 7,665= Rs- 16,860/- and other consequential reliefs as stated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
The case record reveals that the sole O.P. in this case had turned up on being duly summoned & lent scope to contest in this complaint, thereafter the O.P. hadn’t perused this litigation any longer and this complaint case is heard exparte.
Perused the documents furnished by the complainant that included Xerox copy of loan agreement entered by the contesting parties dtd. 19.05.2004, Xerox copy of the order no 07 dtd. 30.06.2009 passed in C.C. 30/2009 by which the said C.C. was treated as dismissed for non prosecution for the reasons of disinclination of the complt. to proceed this case as the O.P./Bank had rectified their mistake to the satisfaction of complainant. Besides this we have perused the Xerox copy of the relevant entries contained in the O.P. Bank’s prepared statement of A/C in respect of the relevant A/C of the complt., utilised for repayment of loan of the complt. from the O.P. to the tune of Rs- two lakhs and seventy one thousand as agreed.
Perused the ex-in-chief on affidavit given from the complt. & the B.N.A filed from the complt’s end.
On the basis of the materials on record the following issues are framed to reach the conclusion in this compliant case.
ISSUES / POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the complainant a consumer as per scopes of Sec 2 (i) (d) clause ii of the C.P. Act of 1986?
- Has this Commission/Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint, as per C.P. Act of 1986?
- Has the O.P. any deficiency in service, as alleged by the complt. and is the O.P. liable for the same in any way?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief(s) as prayed for in this complaint?
Contd…4
-4-
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issues No. 1 & 2:-
We at first take up both these two issues for discussion for the sake of convenience. Having regard to the fact that for house building the complt. had taken loan from the O.P., it is not forthcoming from the four corners of this case record that it was taken to serve any commercial purpose. In consonance with the scope of Sec 2(i)(d) clause ii of the C.P. Act of 1986(as this case was filed and admitted before 20.07.2020) and 2(i)(o) of the C.P. Act of 1986 the complt. was a service holder, beneficiary, having regard to his contractual relationship with the O.P. as customer of the O.P., having continuing relationship with the financial institute here in this case the bank/O.P. The complt. has availed himself of the Banking service of the O.P. and has thereby fallen within definition of consumer under the C.P. Act of 1986.
Having regard to the scopes of Sec 11 of the C.P. Act of 1986, since the O.P. and the complt’s workplace & residence are falling respectively within the jurisdiction of this consumer Forum/Commission, so this Commission/Forum has territorial jurisdiction to deal with this complaint case.
Having regard to the claim sought for in this compliant, this Commission/Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction too, to deal with this complaint.
This complaint case has been filed on 15.06.2020 after the arising of the cause of action of this case last on 01.06.2020. So this case is filed well within the limitation period as contemplated under Sec 24A of the C.P. Act of 1986.
In the premises we feel inclined to hold that this complt. is consumer as per C.P. Act of 1986 and this Commission/Forum has pecuniary & territorial jurisdiction to deal with this case which is not hit by limitation of as per C.P. Act of 1986.
Accordingly both these two issues are decided in favour of the complainant and is thus disposed of.
Issues No. 3 & 4:-
Now we take up both these two issues for discussion together to avoid repetition, prolixity.
Contd…5
-5-
This appears from the term loan agreement entered into by the complt. with the O.P. dtd. 19.05.2004 that the complt. was given loan of Rs- 2.71lakhs i.e. Rs- two lakhs and seventy one thousand by the O.P. and it was settled that interest @8.25% will be charged on the loan amount on highest monthly reducing balance at quarterly rate.
It appears in consonance with the complt’s contention that E.M.I. payment in respect of loan taken by the complt. from the O.P. started from the first week of April 2005 and to the extent of Rs- 3,000/- per month instead of deducting E.M.I. with the amount of Rs- 2,630/- as stipulated in the loan agreement dtd. 19.05.2004 and that practice continued up to June 2009 and in total process the O.P. acquired Rs- 3,000 x 51 months = Rs- 1,53,000/- as E.M.I. Later since the complt. had filed C.C. 30/2009 before this Forum, the O.P. could persuade and prevail upon the petitioner to make that complaint case dismissed for non prosecution and the O.P. thereafter started taking E.M.I. @ Rs- 2,555/- from the complt. from July 2009 and it is found that the complt. made payment of E.M.I. for 129 months @ Rs- 2,555/- per month i.e. up to March 2020 which amounts to Rs- 2,555 x 129 months = Rs- 3,29,595/-. In that process, it is found, in consonance with the complt’s submission, that the O.P. had taken E.M.I. for repayment of loan from the petitioner/complt. Rs- 1,53,000 + 3,29,000 = Rs- 4,82,595/- instead of taking Rs- 4,73,400/- by taking E.M.I. @ Rs- 2,630/- per month for 180 months. So in that process, the O.P. in this complaint case had taken Rs- 4,82,595 – 4,73,400 = Rs- 9,195/-. Besides without just cause, the O.P. had taken Rs- 2,550/- for 3 months i.e. April 2020, May 2020, June 2020 as E.M.I. for repayment of loan taken by the complt. from the O.P.
So in total, it is found, in consonance with the pleadings of the complt. that the O.P. had taken Rs- 9,195 + (Rs- 2,555 x 3) = Rs- 7,665/- = Rs- 16,860/- without any legal basis what so ever.
However, it couldn’t be reflected and established in the prayer portion of this complaint that how the complt. also is entitled to get Rs- 25,500/- more. Though in his ex-in-chief & B.N.A. the complt. has agitated on this issue yet it is not backed by any cogent documentary proof, fortified by mathematical back up.
In the presence of the available materials on record, in the presence of the evidence of the complt. in the form of ex-in-chief on affidavit, in the absence of any cogent evidence from the O.P. to refute the complt’s case. We feel inclined to entertain the complt’s case but in part.
Contd…6
-6-
So it is found that the O.P. has caused deficiency in service towards the complt. & so the complt. is entitled to get the reliefs in part, in this complaint case exparte.
Both these two issues are decided in favour of the complt. and are thus disposed of.
Hence it is…
ORDERED
That the instant complaint case be & the same is allowed exparte in part in favour of the complt. against the sole O.P. but without cost.
The complt. is entitled to get Rs- 16,860/-(Sixteen thousand eight hundred and sixty only) from the O.P. and the complt. is also entitled to get Rs- 10,000/-(ten thousand only) as litigation cost from the O.P.
The O.P. is directed to pay up Rs- 16,860 + 10,000 = Rs- 26,860/-(Twenty six thousand eight hundred and sixty only) towards the complt. within Forty five (45) days from this order, failing which the O.P. has to pay Rs- 100/-(one hundred) from the forty sixth day of this order in this complaint for each day’s default till the realisation of the total amount of Rs- Twenty six thousand eight hundred sixty. The accumulated amount of fine shall be deposited in the ‘State Consumer Welfare Fund’ West Bengal.
The O.P. is directed further to give back to the complt. against proper receipts, all the relevant documents procured by the O.P. from the complt. within 45 days from this order, failing which the complt. will be at liberty to put this order into execution for strict compliance of this order.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the contesting parties of this complaint case, by hand/ by Regd. Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information and necessary action, as per law & relevant rules.
Member Member President
District Commission
Paschim Medinipur
