Final Order/Judgment

Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the continuous deduction of money from his account maintained with State Bank of India, even after settlement of dues and issuance of ‘no-dues’ certificate against a personal loan taken from the OP financial institution, the instant case has been filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

The backdrop of the case in a nutshell is as follows.

The complainant was on receipt of a personal loan of Rs.54,000/- from the OP Bank i.e. IDFC First Bank in the month of October 2016. Thereafter, on receipt of a one-time settlement letter in the month of September 2018 involving an amount of Rs.23,000/- from the OP Bank, reportedly paid the said amount and received a no-dues certificate on 17.01.2019 in respect of the said loan agreement.

However, even after issuance of the no-dues certificate allegedly ‘the OP Bank again started deducting money’ from the SBI Bank A/C of the complainant.

Consequent upon repeated enquiry and persuasion the OP Bank again issued a no dues certificate on 19.02.2021.

But even after issuance of the second No-dues certificate, deductions of money from the complainant’s SBI bank A/c started again in an ‘unfettered’ way. The complainant claims that prior to issuance of ‘NOC’ the ‘OP Bank debited’ Rs.25,370/- as mandate fail charge and after issuance of ‘NOC’ the ‘OP Bank debited’ 10620/- from the account of the complainant.

Here, perhaps the complainant has meant ‘No-dues certificate’ by using the term ‘NOC’. The complainant did not have a regular savings bank account with the OP Bank. Thus, it is not clear how the OP bank debited the amounts from the Complainant’s account.

However considering the above as deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has approached to this District Commission and has prayed for imposing direction upon the OP to make refund of the entire amount ‘fraudulently and illegally’ deducted from his account, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and trauma and for passing any other order as may be deemed fit and proper by this Commission.

The Complainant while submitting the petition has annexed copies of one time settlement proposal sent by the OP, No-due certificate issued on 17.01.19, certain pages of the SBI pass book, No-due certificate issued on 19.02.21, A/C statement of SBI for the period from 01.09.20 to 07.05 21, mail sent to the OP and mail received from the OP.

In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records, it transpires that the complainant is a consumer so far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(7) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are concerned.

The complainant is a resident within the geographical jurisdiction of this District Commission i.e. within the District of Hooghly.

 The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.20,00,000/-.

 Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.

The opposite party contested the case by filing elaborate rebuttals in their written version, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument denying therein most of the allegations leveled against them.

The OP points out that the complaint petition suffers from non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties.

The OP further points out that since November 2017 the complainant became a defaulter in the matter of repayment of the loan and as such ECS mandate bounce charges were deducted by the OP bank and the Complainant’s bank also. So far as the deadline of payment of the one-time settlement amount of Rs,23,000/- is concerned, the complainant, made the payment well beyond the stipulated date. However the OP claims to have waived the cheque bounce charges and certain other charges on requests made by the complainant and the statement of account annexed by the OP reflects that.

The OP draws attention to the issue that several deductions at the rate of Rs.295/- were made by the bank with which the complainant maintained his S/B Account and not the OP bank. Hence it is claimed by the OP that they should not be held responsible for such deductions and OP should have taken the matter up with his banker i.e. SBI.

The OP has also annexed an exhaustive fourteen pages statement of account for the period from 07.10.2016 to 09.03.2021, generated on 09.09.2021.

Materials on records are perused. A thorough scrutiny of the complaint petition indicates that there are certain areas in the complaint petition which are grossly questionable.

Firstly, it is apparent from the complaint petition that the repayment of loan through EMI was linked to the bank account of the Complainant maintained with SBI and ECS mandate was arranged accordingly.

The personal loan was taken in October 2016 and the communication regarding one time settlement of the loan came from the OP on 26.09.18. It is nowhere mentioned that under what circumstances the OP proceeded for one time settlement. In the complaint petition the petitioner refrains from mentioning whether during the span of these two years equated monthly installments were paid off in a regular manner.

However final payment of Rs,23,000/- against one time settlement was paid off by the complainant beyond the deadline as stipulated by the OP.

The declared address of the Complainant is of Uttarpara of Hooghly District whereas the address as mentioned in the SBI pass book of the Complainant is of Pakur, Jharkhand and the bank branch is of Alambazar, Kolkata.

Surprisingly the Complainant does not appear to have approached to his banker i.e. SBI and sought any clarification in the matter of the deductions in question, even on a single occasion.

 Now, this District Commission is of the opinion that so far as the entire series of developments are concerned, State Bank of India had a specific role in the instant issue as the deductions over which the complainant has expressed his grievances were all made by SBI. Thus, State Bank of India should have been made a party in this case. Hence the instant complaint petition obviously suffers from non-joinder of party.    

 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this District Commission is of the view that no deficiency of service on the OP Bank’s part can be established in unequivocal terms.

Hence, it is

                                        ORDERED

that the complaint case no.90/2021 cannot be allowed and the same stands dismissed on contest with no order as to costs.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgements/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The final order will be available in the respective website i.e. www.confonet.nic.in.