Complainant Mr.Kameshwar Jha files a complaint against opposite parties under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The brief fact of the case is that, the complainant was an employee under the Indian Railways. The O.P. Bank is dealing with the financial assistance to the employees of Indian Railways. Complainant during his service in the Indian Railways was entitled to avail the benefits of the O.P’s. Due to some financial need and requirement the complainant obtained a financial assistance as money loan from the O.P’s. The loan was 61,000/- (Rupees Sixty One Thousand Only), installment 60 (Sixty) E.M.I. 1457/- (Rupees One Thousand Four Hundred                                                                                                                                                                         Fifty Seven Only). During the continuation of the said loan the complainant approached the O.P’s. for granting further loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) for his daughter’s marriage. O.P.s also granted the said loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only). At the time of granting the second loan, Rs. 38,108/- (Rupees Thirty Eighty Thousand One Hundred Eight Only) was due from the previous loan. O.P’s grant of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) for the complainant and after deducting Rs. 38,108/- (Rupees Thirty Eighty Thousand One Hundred Eight Only), Rs. 1,11,892/- (Rupees One Lakh Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Two Only) was credited to the account of the complainant. The said loan amount was payable by the complainant by 42 equal monthly installments, which amounted to Rs. 4,538/- (Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Eight Only). The version of the complainant is that the said installment was regularly paid by the complainant and had cleared all his dues and liabilities to the O.Ps. The case of the complainant is that the O.P’s illegally collected 9 (Nine) extra E.M.I. amounting to Rs. 4838/- (Rupees Four Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Eight Only). That as per calculation of the complainant Rs. 58,842/- (Rupees Fifty Eighty Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Two Only) had been recovered in excess amount from him by the O.P’s. The complainant also claimed that the O.P’s. deducted Rs. 34,409/- (Rupees Thirty Four Thousand Four Hundred Nine Only) from the CRBD (Compulsory retirement benefit deposit scheme) account of the complainant. The complainant also claimed that the share certificate issued by the O.P’s. to the complainant vide no. A/17779 Dt. 18.06.2022, B/34926 Dt. 19.09.2005 and 1010847251 Dt. 25.02.2009 Nos. of share 295, 175 and 890 respectively was due to the complainant. The complainant also claimed the amount of those shares were requirement to be paid by the O.Ps.  Complainant also claimed that he several times communicated with the Ops in this matter, but the Ops avoided the same. Hence, the complainant files this case.

The claim of the complainant in this case are follows:-

a.   A direction should be given to the O.P’s to refund following amount:

1. CRBD (compulsory retirement benefit deposit scheme) amount of Rs. 34,409/- only along with interest @ 24% p.a. till the date of realization of amount.
2. Rs. 58,842/- which was recovered in excess from your complainant along with interest @ 24% p.a. till the date of realization of amount.
3. Share value of 295, 175 and 890 shares along with interest @ 24 % p.a. till the date of realization of amount.

 B. direction should be given to the Ops to make payment of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- only to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and continuous harassment.

c.   A direction should be given to the Ops to make payment of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for litigation cost.                                                                                                                                                      

d.   Any further relief as this Ld. Forum deems just and proper for the ends of justice.

Total Suit value is Rs. 3,31,851/- only.

List of documents (Xerox copy) filed on behalf of the complainant:-

1. A Ledger Folio No. KTF/372 dated 3^rd March 2009 is annexed hereto and marked “A”.
2. A Copy of the letter dated 29^th November 2014 is annexed hereto and marked “B”.
3. A Share certificate vide no. A/17779 Dt. 18.06.2005 is annexed hereto and marked “C”.
4. A Share Certificate vide no. B/34926Dt. 19.09.2005 is annexed hereto and marked “D”.
5. A Share certificate vide no. 1010847251 Dt. 25.02.2005 is annexed and hereto marked “E”.
6. A Copy of CRBD pass book is annexed hereto and marked “F”.
7. A letter no. CB/ L/ KTF- 372/ NPA/17-18 Dt. 29.11.2017 is annexed hereto and marked “G”.
8. Complainant representation in favour of Op No. 2 on 11.12.2017 to Op No. 1 at New Jalpaiguri is annexed hereto and marked “H”.
9. Legal notice Dt. 04.06.2018 is annexed hereto and marked “I”.
10. Copy of letter received on 25.07.2019.

The O.P. bank contested the above claim by filing a Written Version wherein they have denied the main allegation of the complainant. The case of the O.P’s. is follows: - Borrower Mr. Kameswar Jha took a loan from the O.Ps Bank on 25/02/2009, amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) and tenure was 42 and with 14% interest. The monthly payable amount (EMI) of Rs. 4538/-(Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Eight Only) from May 2009 and the end date of recovery was October 2012. Prior to this loan, the complainant took another loan on 19/09/2005 and that time his installment was Rs. 1357/-(Rupees One Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Seven Only) and when the complainant renewed for the second loan which was taken on 25/02/2009, the OPs received his installment amount of Rs. 1357/- (Rupees One Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Seven Only) that was applicable to his previous loan instead of Rs. 4538/- (Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Eight Only) against the current loan. Therefore the OPs received short recovery of loan                                                                                                                                                                            and this resulted imposition of penal interest @ 10% per month and the complainant deducted of Rs. 1357/- (Rupees One Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Seven Only) till 13 month from the starting month of recovery. During the period the OPs, have issued letter for recovery of EMI revision of the original EMI of Rs. 4538/-(Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Eight Only) and fixing the same at Rs. 4838/- (Rupees Four Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Eight Only). The complainant started deducted Rs. 4838/-(Rupees Four Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Eight Only) from June 2010. However above EMI could not cover his outstanding loan balance and therefore the Ops recovered the balance loan amount from the complainant’s asset in terms of CRBD amount. According to the OP bank, in case of overdue loan balance is kept against any borrower, the Bank is authorized to adjust his loan balance with his CRBD amount. Bank also acknowledged that the complainant is entitled to get a certain amount including interest up to November 2021 which also includes value of shares.

 Both parties file evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument. We have heard both the Ld. Lawyers of the two parties. Perused the materials on record.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and prayer?
2. Whether the Complainant is a “Consumer” as per provision of C.P. Act, 1986?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps as alleged?
4. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for? To what other relief/and or reliefs, if any, is the Complainant entitled to get?
5.  

Point No.1.

This point is taken up first for consideration. This point has not been pressed by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties at the time of hearing argument. As such, we do not find any reason to hold that the case is not maintainable in its present form. This issue is, thus, decided and disposed of, in favour of the Complainant and against the O.Ps.

Point No.2 ,3 &4

These three points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and their inter-relatedness.

Total loan sanction in the name of the loan borrower Mr Kameshwar Jha (complainant), was rupees 150000/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) on 25 / 02/2009. According to the Para 13 of the written argument submitted by the OPs, that an amount of rupees 1357/-(Rupees One Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Seven Only) deducted for 13 months instead of Rs. 4538/-(Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Eight Only) from the account of the Complainant. Thereafter from 14 month to 51 month OPs collected Rs. 4838/-(Rupees Four Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Eight Only) per month from the account of the compliment. From that version it is crystal clear that the primary EMI was fixed Rs. 4538/-(Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Eight Only) for 42 months.

Total amount was to be paid by the complainant against the loan of rupees 150000/- was 4538× 42= 190596/-

OPs received Rs. 1357/- × 13 months = 17641/-

Thereafter

The OPs received 4838×38 Months = 183844/-

The total amount received by the OPs through EMI collection from the           complainant was 17641+183844= 201485/-.

The OPs collected Rs 201485-190596=10889/-as extra, through EMI collection from the complainant. 

It is found from the record that the complainant deposited Rs. 1357/-(Rupees One Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Seven Only instead of Rs. 4538/-(Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Eight Only) up to 13 months. In Para 15 of the W.V the opposite party stated that after this incident they impose penal interest of 10% upon the complainant for nonpayment of fixed EMI and they fixed the rest EMI by enhancing the amount to Rs. 4838/-(Rupees Four Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Eight Only). By this act of the op, it transpires that the total responsibility for nonpayment of pre-fixed EMI was thrown by the OPs upon the complainant. Here the question arises as to why the same had not been communicated by the opposite party, to the complainant, after receiving the first EMI of Rs. 1357/-(Rupees One Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Seven Only from the complainant and when it was fixed at Rs. 4538/-(Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Eight Only).

In our collective view, both parties are equally responsible for nonpayment or less payment of EMI. As a complainant, he made the mistake by not paying the exact EMI to the OPs. But, the deficiency of service from the OPs cannot be ruled out. Charging penal interest to the complainant is not justified when the complainant was not even informed. At the time of the argument, the op Bank verbally stated, that the complement had a nexus with some of the staff, for which reason the complainant, was able to deposit Rs. 1357/-(Rupees One Thousand                                                                                                                                                                             Three Hundred Fifty Seven Only) instead of Rs. 4538/- (Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Eight Only).

In their evidence on affidavit (Para 15) the OPs agreed that "however above EMI could not cover his outstanding loan balance and therefore we recovered the balance loan amount from his asset it terms of CRBD amount”. The opposite party never mentioned  that how much amount they deducted from the CRBD amount of the complainant .In the complaint petition, evidence on affidavit and  written argument, the complainant, stated that CRBD (compulsory retirement benefit deposit) amount of Rs. 34409/-(Rupees Thirty Four Thousand Four Hundred Nine Only)  was illegally deducted from his account. The opposite party never opposed the version of the complainant. In our view, the deduction of any amount from the CRBD account of the complainant was not necessary when the complainant and the OPs were jointly responsible for the incident. We think the complement is entitled to receive a total CRBD amount without any deduction for any purpose by the opposite Bank.

In case of share value, we are unable to ascertain the matter due to insufficient documentation. On several occasions this Commission, ordered both the parties to submit documents relating to the value of share. Both the parties consciously avoided the same. They did not submit any share certificate and dividend allotted to the complainant. On date 27/07/2022, the OPs submitted one printed document without sign by any authority, which reflect that the total number of share allotted for the complainant is 1500. The dividend allocated by Bank was Rs. 435/-(Rupees Four Hundred Thirty Five Only) up-to the financial year 2010-11 and Rs. 285/-(Rupees Two Hundred Eighty Five Only) up-to the financial year 2013-14.

In Para 24 of the written argument the OPs submitted that “however the compliment is entitled to get a certain amount including interest up to November 2021 which also includes the values of shares and the OPs are ready and willing to pay the saved amount”

Ongoing through the details in the case record, hearing of the both the sides, it is clear that both the parties are equally responsible for this incident. No one should suffer for this purpose and no one should compensate.  As it is already proved that the op Bank illegal collected extra amount Rs. 10889/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Nine Only) by charging penal interest on nonpayment of EMI on time by the complainant and deducted some CRBD amount from the account of the compliment which was not necessary and also submitted that the complainant is entitled to get some interest and share values.  Complainant is able to prove his case in part. .On the other hand complainant is solely responsible for his mental pain and agony as he did not deposit the fixed EMIs on time.                                                                                                                                                                               As it is already proved that the O.Ps have deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practices but, the complainant also responsible in some context. Complainant is entitled to get relief without compensation against the OPs.

Thus, the case succeeds in part against the ops.  

Hence,

it is,

ORDERED

The OPs are directed to refund Rs. 10889/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Nine Only) to the complainant and refund the total CRBD amount to the complainant without any deduction for any purpose. The OPs are also directed to refund the interest till date which also includes the values of 1500 numbers of shares to the complainant. No compensation is awarded for the complainant.  

The Opposite is hereby directed to comply with the order within 30 days. In default of payment of the awarded amount within the stipulated period as stated above, the petitioner would be at liberty to execute the same as per law.

 Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.