Complainant by filing this complaint has alleged that he opened a general savings account at State Bank of India at Salt Lake Electronics Complex Branch in the year 2003 vide A/C No. 10224971677 and the complainant is an employee of DPSC Ltd. of Salt Lake and for the purpose some family matters he took personal loan on two occasions under ten years scheme and paid off the amounts in usual

                                                                                            Contd……2/-

-         2 -

course with interest by deducting the sum from his salary deduction process.  Thereafter complainant took another personal loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in December, 2011subject to payment of E.M.I. of Rs.6,013/- per month payable from his salary as usual and he paid four E.M.I.s in the mean time as usual through salary deduction but in the mean time his daughter’s marriage was fixed on 29.06.2012.  So, he went to the op no.2 at their office and talked for another loan and accordingly tendered a proposal for the TOP-UP of the existing loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- so that he might get another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which would stand in good stead for the purpose of his daughter’s marriage ceremony.

          Subsequently, both the op nos. 2 & 3 offered him a proposal if outstanding amount of Rs.1,91,564/- be cleared further fresh personal loan of Rs.3,00,000/- can be granted to his savings account to meet his exigency and as per advise and assurance of the op, he paid off the loan by deducting Rs.1,50,000/- and rest from his personal savings bank account and paid up the entire balance personal amount on 12.05.2012.  Thereafter op bank issued him “no due certificate” in favour of the complainant.

          Subsequently, the Manager of the op bank issued a letter dated 14.05.2012 to the Vice President (HR), DPSC Ltd. the employer of the complainant intimating with the sanction fresh personal loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for which E.M.I. would be Rs.8,657/- per month for 48 months and also asked to effect salary deduction and accordingly the authority concerned passed order “please deduct a sum of Rs.8,657/- monthly from his salary and remit to his loan account maintained by the bank with effect from June, 2012 to May, 2016”.  Subsequently, the very letter was an additional confirmation of the sanction of loan in addition to the verbal assurance of op nos. 2 & 3.

          On receiving the letter of the op dated 14.05.2012 DPSC his employer confirmed the deduction of a sum of Rs. 8,657/- from his salary and remittance to the same to the op Bank with effect from June, 2012 to May, 2016 vide letter dated 14.05.2012 as per the requisition of the op Bank.

          Accordingly his office DPSC Ltd. deducted a sum of Rs. 8,657/- from his salary for the month of June, 2012 towards the EMI for personal loan and also

                                                                           (202/12)       Contd…….3/-                                                                                  

-         3 -

issued a cheque No.101482 dated 04.-7.2012 as per the instruction of the op Bank.  But after deduction subsequently complainant found that no loan was disbursed against him and deduction of EMI had been started to be collected by the op from his salary.  When the matter was reported to the op, stating that disbursion of loan has not been made and they became silent by adopting unfair means and vexatious means they had been deducting his EMI from his salary without any authority and legal reasons and in the above circumstances, complainant prayed for directing the op to pay the total loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- etc. and also for harassment.

          On the contrary the op Bank by filing written statement submitted that no doubt complainant is customer of their Bank and no doubt he enjoyed personal loan from the Bank and it is also admitted that as per Bank Rule they wrote a letter to the employer of the complainant for deduction of Rs.8,657/- from salary of the complainant and loan was prepared for disbursement.  But subsequently, it was found from the CIBIL (Credit Information Bareau India Limited) report that 18 loan/credit facilities were taken by the complainant and one suit is filed against him for recovery of dues and several loans/credit facilities are irregular for which ultimately bank did not release the said sanctioned loan in favour of the complainant and subsequently after receiving the said EMI cheques amount bank returned the said cheques amount to the employer and suppressing that fact complainant appeared before this Forum and filed this case.  Further the op has stated that as per rules bank wrote letter to the employer for deduction a sum of Rs.8,657/- but subsequently, the same was returned to the complainant/employer long prior to this case so that fact has been disclosed for which the present case should be dismissed.

                                                  Decision with reasons

          On comparative study of the complaint and written version of the ops and also considering the fact of deduction of EMI of Rs.8,657/- as per order of the op Bank from the salary of the complainant on 14.05.2012 against proposed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and admission of the fact that the bank did not disburse due to certain reasons as it was found from the CIBIL list that against complainant there were so many allegations against the complainant.  Further he took several loans

                                                                         (202/12)              Contd……4/-                                                                                                                                                                       

-         4 -

 from different financial institutions and in many cases he has not paid outstanding dues for which his name has been recorded in the CIBIL List and as per banking rules no loan shall be granted in favour of any person whose name is found in the CIBIL List.  Fact remains that as per rule invariably op’s authority did not disburse the loan or to sanction it and about that this Forum has nothing to say.  But question is before conception how birth of disbursement of loan deduction of EMI was started.  Then it is clear that the Bank authority was at fault and their administration was very callous because it is mandatory provision of law that before disbursement of loan amount no deduction can be made from the salary account of any loanee member as per direction of the bank to the employer of the loanee member.  Further fact is that op Bank did not even try to conceive the fact to apologise to the complainant or they did not care to pray for such apology before this Forum that it was an error on the part of the Bank for which they are really shocked.

          Considering that fact we are convinced to hold that such a Bank should be penalized for adopting such unfair trade practice and for not expressing their error before this Forum also.  Without praying for apology ops contested the case with full force for dismissal of the case and this is another fault for which we are convinced to hold that penalty should be imposed for adopting unfair trade practice when op has not expressed their any pain or feeling such sort of act.

          In the light of the above observation we are inclined to say that the complainant’s case is proved regarding negligent and deficient manner of service and for adopting unfair trade practice.  When we are convinced that Bank did not release the loan so the complainant has proved the vital part of the callous activity of the Bank authority and their unwanted and callous direction for deducting EMI against no loan from the salary of the complainant and for which this complaint succeeds in part.

          Hence, it is

                                                     ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed in part on contest with cost of Rs.2,000/- against ops.

                                                            (202/12)                     Contd…….5/-                                                                                  

-         5 -

          Ops Bank are hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- for rendering negligent and deficient manner of service and also for causing mental pain and agony and harassment to the complainant. 

          Ops are directed jointly and severally to pay the entire amount of litigation cost of Rs.2.000/- and compensation of Rs.5,000/- within 15 days from the date of this order failing which the ops shall have to pay punitive damages @ Rs.100/- per day till full satisfaction of this award in favour of the complainant.  Further for adopting unfair trade practice by the ops, they shall have to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as penalty for adopting unfair trade practice in dealing with such loan matter and same shall be paid within 15 days from the date of this order.

          Ops are strongly directed to comply it within the stipulated period of 15 days from the date of this order failing which penal action shall be taken against them even by issuing warrant of arrest for implementation of the order by the ops.