O R D E R
K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that in the month of December, 2001 one Mr. Yogesh, an employee of the O.P bank and advice for a loan of Rs.25,000/- which would be paid in equal installment of Rs.750/- per month. The complainant was agreed and as such applied for a loan of Rs.25,000/- with the O.P bank and on 20.12.2001 the O.P bank granted a sum of Rs.25,000/- and got signed various blank papers and printed documents on the pretext of formalities of the loan facility with the directions to deposit the monthly installments of Rs.750/- each every month regularly. It is alleged that the complainant deposited the installments of Rs.750/- per month regularly till 07.04.2003 and on 19.10.2003 the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.3,500/- with the O.P bank. It is further alleged that after the payment of the amount the said employee of the OP Bank Mr. Yogesh informed the complainant that due to some unavoidable circumstances, the Bank has been closed and the said complainant was not required to deposit further instalment till the fresh notice from the OP Bank. It is alleged that the complainant awaited the notice of the OP Bank, but no notice has been sent or received by the complainant or his guarantor. It is further alleged that in the due course of time the aforesaid guarantor informed the complainant about the execution case No.2641/06-07 decided by the Assistant Collector, Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Parliament Street, New Delhi in which the department of the said guarantor has directed to deduct a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month from the salary of the said guarantor vide dated 02.02.2001 whereas the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,500/- on 08.11.2010 and further a sum of Rs.1,500/- on 29.03.2011 with the O.P bank in loan account No.15956 and till the last payment the complainant had not received any notice from any quarter in this loan account. It is alleged that despite orders of deduction of Rs.2,000/- per month vide order dated 04.02.2011 to the Director (Hort.), MCD, Udyan Vibhag, Karkardooma, Shahdra, Delhi the O.P bank had recovered a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month from the salary and announcement of the said guarantor with their own and as such more than Rs.15,000/- has been remitted to the O.P bank by the department of the guarantor above named. It is further alleged that the complainant has clear and full intention to pay the outstanding dues of the O.P bank as per the actual statement of account. It is alleged that the complainant requested on number of times O.P bank not to recover the dues of loan from the salary of the aforesaid guarantor and that he himself will pay the installment regularly and punctually on the actual amount but all in vain. On these facts complainant prays that O.P be directed to supply the actual statement of account of the complainant, waive the interest on the actual amount and recover the sum of Rs.2,000/- per month in the account from the complainant himself and not from the salary and allowances of the said guarantor.
2. O.P appeared and filed its written statement. In its written statement OP has not disputed that complainant had applied for a loan of Rs.25,000/- with the O.P bank. However, case of OP is that the complainant had not deposited the installments of Rs.750/- per month regularly. Upto 07.04.2003 fifteen installments were due i.e. Rs.11,250/- but he deposited Rs.3750/- and overdue was Rs.7,500/- at that time. It is alleged that then complainant deposited Rs.3,500/- on 19.10.2003, hence a sum of Rs.8,500/- overdue upto 19.10.2003. It is further alleged that complainant is willful defaulter. It is incorrect that the complainant had given his residence address as C-47, Gokulpuri, Delhi and registered notices were sent by the bank on his address which were returned by the postal authority with remarks that no such person was found at that address. It is further alleged that now he is living in U.P. and has not informed the bank till date. It is alleged that the complainant is not willing to deposit the amount and has no clear intention to repay the entire loan amount. It is further alleged that the O.P bank recovered the amount from the salary of the guarantor as per the Delhi Co-operative Society Act and Rules. Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts has alleged in the complaint. On the other hand Mr. S.K. Sharma, Chief Executive Officer of O.P Bank has already filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P Bank.
4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and also heard submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties.
5. In the present case the dispute revolves around the issue as to whether the recovery proceedings initiated by the O.P to recover the loan amount sanctioned to complainant were justified or not. Admittedly the complainant had taken loan of Rs.25,000/- from the O.P bank on 20.012.2001. It is also admitted that during the course of period he did pay sum amount towards repayment of the aforesaid sum and could not adhere to the discipline and defaulted in paying the regular installments to O.P which compelled O.P to file recovery proceedings before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Arbitrator passed award and against the complainant and certain amount was deducted from the salary of the guarantor which was not appreciated by the complainant and came forward to make the payment of the loan.
6. The prayer sought by the complainant in the present case is with regard to supply the actual statement of account, to waive the interest on the actual amount and to recover the sum of Rs.2,000/- per month from the account of the complainant himself and not from the salary and allowances of the guarantor Sh. Ramesh Chand.
7. So far as the first prayer is concerned it is the complainant himself who has placed on record the entries from his passbook after 2009 which clearly indicates that he was duly supplied the statement of account pertaining to the loan by O.P. So far as the second prayer is concerned with regard to waiver of interest it doesn’t lie within the jurisdiction of this forum because firstly, it is the complainant who himself agreed to the rate of interest to be levied on the loan amount. Secondly, the forum cannot interfere with the banking rules with regard to rate of interest on the loan amount. Regarding third prayer he can approach the O.P and make request the recovery of the loan amount as per installments agreed upon and can relieve the guarantor.
8. Keeping in view of the aforesaid circumstances and facts of the case, we do not find any kind of deficiency having initiated by O.P in the proceedings undertaken for recovery of loan. No merit in the complaint, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced this 30th day of April, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
