DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 653
Instituted on: 07.11.2016
Decided on: 10.04.2017
Ripan Kumar son of Bhola Nath, resident of Bagguana Basti, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
Corporation Bank, Opp. New Grain Market, Gaushalla Road, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.
..Opposite party.
For the complainant : Shri Parmod Saxena, Adv.
For Opp. Party : Shri Neeraj Kalra, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Ripan Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the Op by getting a loan vide loan account number CVEHI/01/120020. The grievance of the complainant is that he was surprised to receive a notice dated 20.4.2016 in which the OP declared the complainant as NPA, as such he contacted the OP and also sent the reply to the notice. The extra charges and the penal interest has been wrongly charged by the bank and debited to the account of the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,569/- which is said to be wrong and illegal. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.50,569/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of debit till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that this Forum has got no jurisdiction and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is stated that the complainant had obtained a vehicle loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on 26.9.2012 and the same was repayable in 84 monthly instalments of Rs.8760/- starting from 25.10.2012 and the complainant was to pay the instalment on 25th of every month. The complainant did not deposit the instalments of April, 2014 and August, 2014, however the complainant paid excess amount in the months of November and December, 2014, but with that amount, out of two overdue instalments only one instalment could be recovered, so in the March, 2015 the account was overdue with one month instalment and the complainant also did not deposit the instalments of April and May, 2015, so due to the above said reasons, three instalments of the loan become overdue and account was classified as NPA in view of the RBI guidelines and after the account is classified NPA the interest charged to the loan account is required to be deposited to interest suspense account and if in future the account become regular, the outstanding interest in suspense account reversed in the main account as the bank system classified the account of the complainant as NPA on 26.5.2015. Had the complainant deposited the overdue amount on or before 25.5.2015, the account of the complainant could not have classified as NPA. As such, it is stated that the amount of Rs.50,569/- has been rightly debited to the account of the complainant. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 documents and affidavits and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Op has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6 documents and affidavits and closed evidence.
4. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.
5. A bare perusal of the complaint shows that the complainant has concealed various material facts, such as the complainant has not mentioned in the complaint that what was the amount and for what purpose the complainant had taken the loan, whereas in the reply it is clearly mentioned that it was a term loan of Rs.5,00,000/- which was taken for purchase of a vehicle. In the reply, it is clearly mentioned that an amount of Rs.50,569/- has rightly been recovered from the complainant as the account of the complainant became NPA as the complainant did not deposit the due instalments i.e. for April, 2014 and August, 2014 and thereafter some amount was deposited in excess, but then there was a short of one instalment and further the complainant did not deposit two full instalments for the months of April, 2015 and May, 2015, as such due to this reason, there was short of three instalments, as such the account of the complainant became NPA and accordingly the amount of Rs.50,569/- was debited to the account of the complainant on 25.5.2016. The complainant has himself produced the Photostat copy of the document Chapter-16 Management of Non Performing Assets and under the column “Term Loan” it is clearly mentioned that the term loan account will be treated as NPA if interest and/or instalment of principal remain overdue for a period more than 90 days. In the present case, it is clearly proved that three loan instalments remained over due for the period more than 90 days. As such, we find nothing wrong on the part of the Ops in charging such amount as the account of the complainant became NPA. As such, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
6. In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
April 10, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
