DATE OF FILING: 19.10.2015.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 14.10.2016.
Dr. N.Tuna Sahu, Member:
The complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in banking service against the Opposite Parties (for short, the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that while working at A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. at Berhampur, the complainant was borrowed a personal loan for amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupee One Lakh) on 16.9.2011 @18.25% fixed interest and the total fixed interest of Rs.30,151.64 paisa. The rate of interest applied from October 2011 and agreed to pay the loan amount within 7.9.2014. The total tenure was 36 months and frequency of EMI was monthly and the EMI amount was Rs.3628/- per month. But the O.Ps sanctioned loan for Rs.97,210/- in total to the complainant. The loan account number was 19578671 issued by the O.Ps. The O.P.No.1 is the registered office. The O.P.No.2 is the area office and subordinate administrative office of the O.P.No.1 and sanctioned the loan after agreement with the complainant. The O.P.No.3 is subordinate administrative office of the O.P.No.1 & 2 and verified all the documents required for the sanction of the loan amount. After sanction of loan, the complainant deposited all the EMI’s in time and there was due of Rs.3562/- only to clear and close the said loan account. Accordingly the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.3562/- by cash at O.P.No.3 Bank on 21.8.2014 bearing serial No.3125104 prior to last date of payment as per agreement. But the O.Ps debited an amount of Rs.3562/- from the loan account bearing No. 19578671 without implicit consent of the complainant on 30.8.2014 and transferred the amount of Rs.3562/- to the salary account of the complainant bearing No.11071050001517. It is also alleged that the salary account of the complainant belongs to the O.Ps and the O.Ps mishandled the said account of the complainant and manipulated all the above. It comes to light that the O.P.No.2 deposited a post dated cheque for Rs.3628/- in the loan account of the complainant on 9.9.2014, which was bounced on the same day and for the said bounce cheque, the O.P.No.2 charged Rs.450/- towards cheque bouncing charges and Rs.56/- towards due, for overdue charges and asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.581/- to clear the dues towards cheque bounce and overdue charges and the complainant deposited the said amount on 28.10.2014 at O.P. No.3 Bank. Even after deposit of the amount by the complainant, the O.P.No.2 issued a legal notice vide No.HDFC/DLN/PL/4/14 dated 17.11.2014 to pay the loan installment amount of Rs.3628/-. Again on 2011.2014 the O.Ps issued another letter threatening to initiate legal action which was received by the complainant on 29.11.2014. Acknowledging both the notices from the O.Ps, the complainant sent replies by registered post through the Law Consortium vide No.49/TLC dated 3.12.2014 and No.57 dated 22.12.2014 respectively. Then the O.Ps closed the loan account of the complainant on 17.1.2015 instead of 7.9.2014 by sending a letter dated 21.1.2015 vide No.19578671/902/BOD/210115/C/001. During these 5 months the O.Ps harassed the complainant like anything and tortured mentally physically and financially to grab more money from the complainant. By these act of the O.P.No.2 & 3 the complainant suffered irreparably such as mentally, physically and financially towards losing the interest. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct he O.Ps to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- including harassment mentally, physically and financially by suppressing material facts, litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum till final realization.
3. On notice, Mr. Manoj Kumar Panda Advocate and Associates filed Vakalatanama on behalf of O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 10.12.2015 but failed to file written version, as a result they were declared set exparte on dated 2.5.2016.
4. On the date of exparte hearing of the consumer dispute, the learned counsel for the complainant was present and filed his memo of written argument before this Forum and also orally submitted that the present complainant is a loanee under the O.Ps and for his personal purpose he borrowed a loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from O.P.No.3 on 16.09.2011 on charge of 18.25% fixed interest per annum and was agreed to make repayment of the loan within 07.09.2014. The tenure was 36 months and the EMI was fixed Rs.3,628/- per month to be paid by the complainant. As contended, the O.Ps disbursed a sum of Rs.97,210/- out of sanctioned loan of Rs.1,00,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant made repayment of all loan amounts and there was a due of Rs.3562/- as outstanding on the complainant to clear and close the said loan account. It was also contended that the O.Ps debited an amount of Rs.3562/- from the loan account bearing No.19578671 without the consent of the complainant on 30.08.2014 and transferred the said amount to the salary account of the complainant bearing No.11071050001517. Subsequently, to harass the complainant, the O.P.No.2 deposited a cheque for Rs.3628/- in the loan account which was bounced and for the bounced cheque, the O.Ps charged Rs.450/- towards bouncing charges and Rs.56 towards overdue charges and asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.581/- more to clear the dues. Accordingly, the complainant also deposited the said amount on 28.10.2014. However, soon after deposit of the said amount, the O.Ps issued a legal notice to pay the loan installment amount of Rs.3,628/- and thereafter to clean their skin issued another letter on 20.11.2014 to initiate legal action against the complainant. The complainant after receipt of the legal notices replied the same on 22.12.2014 and after that the O.Ps finding no ways closed the said loan account of the complainant on 17.01.2015 after 5 months. The learned counsel for the complainant also contended that due to harassment and negligence of the O.Ps the complainant suffered mentally, physically and financially so they are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation in the interest of justice.
5. We have heard the above pleadings of the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the complaint, written argument and Annexures and legal notices exchanged by the parties. We have also verified the statement of accounts issued by the O.Ps to the complainant for the period 27.11.2011 to 27.11.2014 placed as Annexure-A on the case record. We have also perused the payment receipt of Rs.3,574/- placed as Annexure - B on the case record. On perusal of the statement of accounts, it reveals that it is not in dispute that the complainant is a loanee under the O.Ps vide his loan account No. 19578671, where an amount of Rs.97,210 was disbursed to the complainant under personal loan scheme at Berhampur and accordingly Rs.3,628/- was fixed as monthly EMIs to be paid within a total tenure of 36 months with fixed rate of interest @18.25% which was applied from the month of October 2011. The starting date of installment was 07.10.2011 and the end date was 07.09.2014. Accordingly, the complainant paid all installments starting from 07.10.2011 as per fixed EMIs and the last installment was due on 07.09.2014 which was also paid on 08.09.2014.
6. From the pleadings of the learned counsel for the complainant and materials placed in the record, it reveals that the loan of the complainant has already been paid to the O.Ps and the loan account of the complainant has been settled as per the statement of account placed on the case record. As per the legal notice by the learned counsel for the complainant and argument, the O.P. Bank is to refund the excess amount of Rs.581/- and to issue the No Dues Certificate in favour of the complainant and to pay Rs.15,000/- with interest @18 p.a. towards harassment and Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant. On verification of the statement of accounts, we found that the O.P. has also refunded the excess amount to the account of the complainant as mentioned in page-3 of statement of account placed as Annexure-A in the case record. In fact, the installment end date was 07.09.2014 and the complainant has also paid the installment within the due date as revealed from the statement of account. The only negligence caused to the complainant by the O.P. Bank that the No Dues Certificate issued on 17.01.2015 after elapse of 4 months from the date of final repayment of the loan account.
7. In a sequel the above discussion, in our considered view, we would like to say that the O.P. Bank has taken long four months to issue the No Dues Certificate to the complainant after final repayment of the loan and i.e. after issue of the legal notice to the O.Ps. It is also a fact that the O.P. Bank did not prefer to contest in this case and even after duly served notice by this Forum not appeared to defend their case. In absence of any pleading from the side of O.Ps, we are constrained to accept the uncontroverted version of the complainant that O.P. Bank has issued the No Dues Certificate to the complainant after elapse of 4 months and harassed the complainant for four months which is legally not permissible under law. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the O.Ps as per the law as prescribed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
8. With regard to award of compensation under Section 14 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Consumer Unity and Trust Society, Jaipur Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Calcutta & Anr reported in 1986-95, Consumer 1456 (NS) observed as follows:
“Negligence is absence of reasonable or prudent care which a reasonable person is expected to observe in a given set of circumstance. But the negligence for which a consumer can claim to be compensated under this sub-section must cause some loss or injury to him. Loss is a generic term. It signifies some detriment, deprivation or damage. Injury too means any damage or wrong. It means invasion of any legally protected interest of another. Thus, the provisions of Section 14(1) (d) are attracted if the person from whom damages are claimed is found to have acted negligently and such negligence to the person claiming damages, in other words loss or injury, if any, must flow from negligence”.
In the present case, a legal injury is caused to the complainant due to negligence on the part of OPs and therefore, in order to recognize the legally protected rights of the complainant, he needs to be compensated. The complainant has also claimed a sum of Rs.15,000/- by way of compensation towards harassment by OP Bank and Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation. However, the complainant not corroborated this claim by filing any cogent documentary evidence regarding loss of Rs.15,000/-. Thus, it appears to be a hypothetical claim. But it is evident that the consumer has suffered due to non-issue of No Dues Certificate by the OPs even after more than four months. To compensate that loss and suffering, we, with a thoughtful consideration, decided to award a token compensation which is to be paid by the O.Ps jointly to the complainant by way of compensation, since the O.Ps are indifferent towards the complainant even after several request.
9. As for as the compensation is concerned, to meet the ends of justice, we feel that it would be just and proper to pay a sum of Rs.500/- to the complainant towards compensation, harassment, mental agony and for deficiency in service on part of O.Ps and we also allow a modest sum of Rs.500/- towards cost of the litigation, since the complainant has hired services of an advocate.
10. In the result, we partially allow the case of the complainant against all OPs. We direct the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.500/- to the complainant within two months of receipt of this order towards compensation, harassment, mental agony and for deficiency in service for non-issuance of No Dues Certificate to the complainant even after repayment of loan dues. We also allowed a modest sum of Rs.500/- towards cost of the litigation to be paid to the complainant within the same period, failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the aforesaid amount under Section 27/25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case is disposed of accordingly.
11. The order is pronounced in the open Forum on this 14th day of October 2016 under the signature and seal of the Forum. Copy of the order shall be supplied to the parties free of cost.
