ORDER                                 Dated:  25-10-2016

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President



1.     Complainant filed this complaint on 18-11-2014 and alleged that
 he is  holder of a  savings bank account with OP1 and has taken a
home loan from OP2 for a sum of Rs. 8.5 Lacs for the purchase of flat
and the same is payable in 193 EMIs of Rs. 12,000/- from 30.4.2005 to
30.4.2021 on floating rate basis.  Complainant further alleged that he
has not received any copy of the loan agreement from OP2 for the past
10 years and all the EMIs till date is paid on time without any delay
as agreed between the parties. A call was received by complainant from
OP2 stating that the installment for the period of August 2013 was
bounced by OP1 on 22.08.2013 and OP2 asked him to clear the same.
Complainant further alleged that on 24.08.2013 a collection person
visited the residence of  the complainant  and abused him in front his
family members and friends. On 31.08.2013 EMI of August 2013 was
presented by OP2  and the same was cleared on 31.08.2013 by OP1
against the due installment.   Complainant vide letter dated 13.5.2014
demanded clarification for the return of the cheque from OPs.  On the
same date, complainant received reply from OP1 that they have not
received ECS of Rs. 12,000/-.  Hence complainant prayed to direct OPs
 to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the mental agony and Rs. 12,000/- as
litigation cost and to provide the copy of loan agreement.

2.     In reply, OP1 admitted that complainant has a savings bank
account with OP1 and complainant has given instruction to his financer
for EMI through ECS.OP1 also admitted that  ECS debit claim was
received from RBI by OP1 on 31.08.2013 and it was honored by  OP1 and
received no claim through ECS from RBI on 21.08.2013 or 22.08.2013.OP1
further admitted  that the ECS process is centrally controlled by RBI
and the payee bank has no control over the same. In reply, OP2
admitted that complainant has taken a loan of Rs. 8.5 Lakhs payable in
193 monthly installments and the complainant has never written any
communication to it informing that complainant has not obtained copy
of the loan agreement in the last 10 years. It also admitted that the
loan of the complainant was transferred to it in the year 2013 vide
order of the Hon’ble High Court for amalgamation under the provisions
of section 391-394 of the companies Act 1956. It admitted that the
complainant submits all the EMI’s till date is paid on time without
any delay or bouncing as agreed between the parties. OPs denied rest
of the allegations made in the complaint and prayed that the complaint
be dismissed with cost.

3.     In support of complaint complainant filed his own affidavit
along with the documents  copy of letter  dated 01.02.2013
(Ex.PW-1/A1), copy of bank statement  (Ex.PW-1/A2)  , copy of e-mails
(Ex.PW-1/A3) , copy of the statement  dated 27.12.2013 (Ex.PW-1/A4) ,
copy of  letter dated 13.05.2014 (Ex.PW-1/A5) , copy of reply dated
13.05.2014 (Ex.PW-1/A6),  copy of the letter dated 03.06.2014
(Ex.PW-1/A7) , copy of reply by OP1 on 03.06.2014 (Ex.PW-1/A8), copy
of email (Ex. PW-1/A9).

4.     In support of reply OP1 filed affidavit of Sh. V.H.Suresh
(Chief Manager  and OP2 filed affidavit of Sh. Sushil Kumar Gupta
(RLM) along with documents.

5.     Both the parties filed written arguments.

6.     We have considered the evidence led by the parties and their
written and oral arguments and perused file.  In this case points to
be considered are as under:-

          (a) Whether complainant is a consumer?

          (b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

               (c) Relief?

7.       In reply OP1 admitted that complainant has a savings account
with      OP1. OP1 also admitted that there was a loan agreement
between complainant and OP2 hence admittedly complainant is a
consumer.

8.      The only dispute between the complainant and OPs is that  EMI
of complainant which was to be  paid to OP2 on 22.08.2013 was not
deducted from his account and  it was deducted on 31.08.2013  i.e.
after the delay of nine days. It is pertinent to mention herein that
in accounting system such delay is not extra ordinary and is not
material.  As per the explanation given by OP1, the reason for the
delay was ECS debit claim was received from RBI by OP1 on 31.08.2013
and not on 21.08.2013 or 22.08.2013. We are sorry to say that no
reasonable prudent person can believe that  for a delayed payment of
EMI by 9 days OP2 has raised  a hue and cry  particularly when the
complainant has paid his EMI very regularly. As no interest charged by
OP2 for the delayed payment by 9 days , therefore, such delay is not
important.  It is also pertinent to mention herein that complainant
alleged in his complaint that he did not receive a copy of loan
agreement in last 10 years cannot be presumed  true allegation,
particularly when the complainant has been paying his loan installment
regularly for the past 10 years without having a copy of the loan
agreement with him and he has yet been abiding by the terms and
conditions of the loan agreement.  As far as allegations  of the
complainant that he received call  from OP2 regarding loan payment and
a collection person visited his residence on 24.08.2013  and abused
him in front of  his family members and friends  cannot be  believed
in absence of  date of the call  , name of the person abusing. It is
pertinent to mention herein that complainant did not file the
affidavit/ evidence of his family members in this regard.

9.      Looking to the above facts and circumstances we are of the
considered opinion that  in this case complainant failed to prove
deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Hence the complaint is
dismissed.

10.             Copy of the order be made available to the parties as
per law. File be consigned to record room.



Announced on ……….