Orissa

Cuttak

CC/30/2018

Suren Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

GM,Uco Bank - Opp.Party(s)

B Baisakh & associates

13 May 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.30/2018

Sri Suren Sahu,

S/O: Late Bhagaban Sahu,

At:Mutarifa,P.O:Padmapur,

Via:Bahugram,Dist:Cuttack,

Pin-754200.                                                                                 ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.         General Manager,Circle,

UCO Bank,Ashoka Market,Bhubaneswar.

 

2.         Chief  Manager,

                                UCO Bank,At/PO:Salepur,

Dist:Cuttack.

 

3.        Senior Manager,UCO Bank,

At/PO:Salepur,Dist:Cuttack.                                                   ... Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    13.03.2018

Date of Order:  13.05.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. B.Baisakh,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps       :                 Mr. B.B.Swain,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Sibananda,Mohanty,Member.

 

            The case record is put up today for orders

The complainant’s case in short is that he is a Sr. Citizen and resides within the jurisdiction of this Commission.  He has a  S.B.Account No. 04290100008008 in the branch of O.P No.3.   He was a retired employee of O.Ps Bank.  When he was working as a Head Cashier in the office of O.P No.3,  he had availed  a car loan vide loan agreement, dt.22.9.2014 with O.P No.3 and had purchased  a car of “Maruti Suzuki”, having Chassis No.569313, Engine No.4686941, Model-K-10 VXI Top.  The complainant was paying monthly instalments @ Rs.5,400/- regularly, which was fixed for a continuous period of 84 months.  That during continuance of  E.M.I payment, he attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 29.2.2016.  It came to his notice that an amount of Rs.2,65,000/- has been debited from his S.B.Account No.04290100008008 without any cogent reasons.  Complainant brought to the notice of O.P.3 about such debit but the O.P No.3 said that the deduction of the amount from S.B.Account of complainant is justified.  Then the complainant requested the O.P No.3 to give information in writing but the O.P No.3 refused to give anything in writing. Thereafter he filed an application under R.T.I Act on 5.9.17 enquiring about the debit from his S.B.Account.  The O.P No.2 asked the complainant for settlement of the dispute but that could not materialise.  It is alleged that non-release of the deducted amount from the S.B. Account No. 04290100008008 of complainant clearly reveals that there is unfair trade practice on the part of O.P No.2 & 3.  He has repeatedly approached the O.Ps for release of that debited amount but that could not be materialised.  Hence he has filed the present case with a prayer for direction to O.P Nos.2 & 3 to release the deducted amount of Rs.2,65,000/- in his favour, to award compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment as well as cost of Rs.50,000/-.

2.         The O.Ps have contested the case jointly and filed their written version.  It is stated by them that the complaint case is misleading one and has been filed by suppressing  material facts and thereby is liable to be dismissed.  It is also stated that the complainant has no loco-standi to file the present case and hence the case is not maintainable, so also it is barred by law of limitation.  It is further stated that the complainant being an employee of O.Ps had availed a car loan and had given an undertaking to repay the loan prior to his retirement.  The complainant executed loan agreement with the O.P bank but after repayment of the loan amount had approached this Commission for alleged violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement which is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Consumer Commission.  It is stated by the O.Ps that the complainant had availed a term loan of Rs.3,16,000/- vide sanction letter dt.20.9.14 for purchasing a new car.  The term of repayment was fixed at 84 month E.M.Is @ 10.45% interest at monthly rests with an E.M.I of Rs.5,400/-for 84 months.  The complainant and his wife being borrower and co-borrower executed the loan agreement to that effect.  It is stated by them that the complainant availed this loan with an undertaking to repay the same before retirement for which at the time of retirement, his balance outstanding loan amount was squared up from the retirement benefits.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. The complainant retired from the service on 29.2.2016. At that time, it was found that complainant was having outstanding dues of Rs.2,65,000/- in his loan account.  Since there was already an undertaking by the complainant to square up the loan if any, by the time of retirement, the bank adjusted the loan outstanding from the S.B.Account of the complainant.  Hence it is prayed for dismissal of the case.

            To support their case, both the parties have filed their relevant documents.

3.         Keeping in mind the contentions of the complaint petition and that of the written version of the O.Ps as well, this Commission feels it proper to settle the following issues for proper adjudication of this case.

1. Whether the case as filed is maintainable or not?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue No.1.

              The complainant had availed a car loan of Rs.3,16,000/- by executing a loan agreement to that effect and was paying E.M.Is regularly.  It is admitted by the O.Ps that the complainant was never a defaulter of E.M.Is.  As per the agreement, the complainant was repaying the loan dues by way of E.M.I @ Rs.5,400/- per month.  Hence the complainant is a consumer and the present case is maintainable. The O.Ps have deducted Rs.2,65,000/- on 18.3.2016 from his S.B.Account on the allegation of outstanding dues by the time of his retirement.  The bank has stated that the complainant had given an undertaking to the bank to that effect that he would clear the loan amount by the time of his retirement.  But the O.Ps had not produced any evidence to that effect.  In the loan agreement there is no such clause for repayment before the due date.  The O.Ps bank cannot impose additional clause unilaterally in the Loan Agreement.  Hence deduction of amount from S.B. account of the complainant towards total outstanding car loan is illegal and arbitrary.  This attitude/action of O.Ps clearly reveals unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on their part. 

Issue No.2.

            It is proved that the O.P bank without any cogent reason or without any basis has debited an amount of Rs.2,65,000/- from the S.B.Account of the complainant towards the Loan Account.  So the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint petition.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps and they are jointly and severally liable.  Thus the O.Ps are directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum on  Rs.2,65,000/-, calculating the same from 18.3.2016, when the O.P No.3 debited Rs.2,65,000/- in the S.B.Account of complainant for adjusting the Loan Account till the payment is made. This order is to be carried out within a month hence.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 13^th day of May,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.

 

 

                                                                                                                              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                        President