DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.5 of 2020 Date of Instt. 06.01.2020 Date of Decision: 10.08.2021

Satish Kumar age 59 years, 977, Rajput Nagar, Model House, Jalandhar, Punjab – 144003, Mbl. No. 98787-34340.

……Complainant.

Versus

1. City Union Bank, ES-245, Julka Arcade, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar, Punjab 144001

2. City Union Bank, 149, TSR Big Street, Kumbakonam Thanjavur District Tamil Nadu – 612001.

…...Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President) Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Present: Sh. Prince Taneja, Auth. Rep. for the Complainant. Sh. P.M.S. Narang, Adv. Counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.

ORDER

Kuljit Singh (President)

1. Complainant Balwinder Singh has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) against Opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).

2. Facts leading to the present complaint, in brief, are that the complainant had taken loan against property (Loan account No.501812080042273) from the OP-1 on 20.08.2018. Repayment was to be made by monthly installments of Rs.15,778/- each with the first installment being due on 20.09.2018. Sufficient balance was available on every due date in his saving account No.500101011906196 to cover the EMis failing due in September, October and November but despite repeated reminders, the OP-1 neglected to debit the said installments on time, contending that the installments would be auto-debited by the system. On 22.11.2018, the OP-1 debited his saving account with three installments of Rs.16,000/- each, as against actual monthly installment of Rs.15,778/- each. Afterward, on 29^th November, the OP-1 again debited his saving account with Rs.1,500/- as Penal Interest, which had accrued due to Ops own negligence. And again on 01^st December, the same account was debited with another charge of Rs.1326/-. Thus, the total disputed amount is Rs.3,492/-. On repeatedly, asking to refund the total disputed amount so charged, the OP-1 maintained that the refund cannot be made in any case. On 22.07.2019, he lodged a complaint with Banking Ombudsman (BO) Chandigarh. It is very material to mention here that on 04.11.2019, just a day before when the OP-1 was supposed to appear before the BO, the OP-1 sent to his home an outsider agent, who is external to the bank, to pressurize him and his family members and get the complaint withdrawn forcefully. The agent Ajay – 7009690832, made a phone call and came to their home and started intimidating and threatening him and his family members in presence of their neighbors. Thereafter, the said agent left but again came back next morning and played a trick to fraudulently obtain his signatures on a rough blank paper by lying that such signed paper was needed at hearing before the BO in Chandigarh. This act too constitutes a major deficiency in service and very unfair trade practice on part of OP-1. On enquiring about it and learning all the reality, he had immediately apprised the BO of this highly disgusting and contemptible act of OP-1 by way of another complaint on 14.11.2019, but in its reply over a phone call from the BO received in the morning of 26^th December, he was told that the BO is not authorized to entertain this claim and was advised to file consumer case. Lastly, prayer has been made that OP be directed to refund/credited disputed amount of Rs.3492/-in full alongwith interest @18% p.a. from date of debit till realization. Further, Rs.4,50,000/- claimed as compensation for harassment and Rs.45,000/- as litigation costs.

3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through its counsel and filed written reply raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; complainant is barred to file present complaint; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; there were no standing instructions of the complainant in his saving bank account to debit the loan installment from his saving account to his loan account and for that reason the same could not be debited and for that reason arrear interest capitalization of Rs.1550/- and Rs.1398/- was charged in the loan account of the complainant. The complainant had earlier filed a complaint before Banking Ombudsman Chandigarh and the said complaint was disposed off as the Ops have already credit the amount claim by the complainant in his loan account No.501812080042273 on 05.11.2019 vide two entries of Rs.1550/- and Rs.1398/-. On merits, the OPs submitted that it denied that just a day before the BO, the OP-1 sent some outsider/external agent to the home of complainant and pressurized the complainant and his family members to withdraw the complaint. It is denied that agent Ajay – 7009690832 made a phone call and came to the home of complainant and started intimidating and threatening the complainant and his family member in presence of neighbours of complainant. The said Ajay is not the agent of bank. No such act was committed hence their no deficiency on the part of OP-1. It is denied that a reply over a phone call from the BO received in the morning of 26^th December, complainant was told that BO is not authorized to entertain this claim regarding the involvement of agent. The amount claimed by complainant already credited in the loan account of complainant on 05.11.2019 vide two different entries of Rs.1550/- and Rs.1398/-, hence the complaint itself not maintainable. Other averments of complaint denied and prayed for dismissal of present complaint with costs.

4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.

5. Rejoinder not filed.

6. We have heard the parties and have also gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of complainant as well as case file very carefully.

7. The complainant has argued that complainant had taken loan against property (Loan account No.501812080042273) from the OP-1 on 20.08.2018. Repayment was to be made by monthly installments of Rs.15,778/- each with the first installment being due on 20.09.2018. Sufficient balance was available on every due date in his saving account No.500101011906196 to cover the EMI’s failing due in September, October and November but despite repeated reminders, the OP-1 neglected to debit the said installments on time, contending that the installments would be auto-debited by the system. On 22.11.2018, the OP-1 debited his saving account with three installments of Rs.16,000/- each, as against actual monthly installment of Rs.15,778/- each. Afterward, on 29^th November, the OP-1 again debited his saving account with Rs.1,500/- as Penal Interest, which had accrued due to Ops own negligence. And again on 01^st December, the same account was debited with another charge of Rs.1326/-. Thus, the total disputed amount is Rs.3,492/-. On repeatedly, asking to refund the total disputed amount so charged, the OP-1 maintained that the refund cannot be made in any case. On 22.07.2019, he lodged a complaint with Banking Ombudsman (BO) Chandigarh. It is very material to mention here that on 04.11.2019, just a day before when the OP-1 was supposed to appear before the BO, the OP-1 sent to his home an outsider agent, who is external to the bank, to pressurize him and his family members and get the complaint withdrawn forcefully and prayed for relief claim.

8. On the other hand, counsel for OPs argued that there were no standing instructions of the complainant in his saving bank account to debit the loan installment from his saving account to his loan account and for that reason the same could not be debited and for that reason arrear interest capitalization of Rs.1550/- and Rs.1398/- was charged in the loan account of the complainant. The complainant had earlier filed a complaint before Banking Ombudsman Chandigarh and the said complaint was disposed off as the Ops have already credit the amount claim by the complainant in his loan account No.501812080042273 on 05.11.2019 vide two entries of Rs.1550/- and Rs.1398/-.

9. From the account statement Ex.OP-1, it crystal clear that claimed amount in dispute has already been credited vide transaction entries dated 05.11.2019 i.e. before the filing of the present complaint. But the said amount remitted back to the account of the complainant after lapse of about one year. As such, there is some deficiency on the part of Ops proved.

10. In view of the above detailed discussion, complaint is partly allowed that OPs are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.500/- paid as litigation.

11. This order shall be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs shall be liable to pay penal interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint, till its realization.

12. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

13. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission

10^th of August 2021

Kuljit Singh

(President)

Jyotsna

(Member)