IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

                CASE No.  CC/220/2017.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:             Date of Disposal:

   20.12.17                                    02.01.18                                    22.04.22

Complainant: Brindaban Chakraborty

                        S/o Late Niranjan Chakraborty

                        Vill&PO-Bagore, PS-Nabagram

                        Dist- Murshidabad, Pin-742184

-Vs-

Opposite Party: Manager, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank

                           Sarbanagar Branch

                           PS&PO-Panchgram, Dist Murshidabad

                           Pin-742184

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        : Monalisa Dutta Thakur

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : Subhanjan Sengupta

   Present:   Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.     

        Sri. Subir Sinha Ray……………………………………Member.                        

                     Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

     FINAL ORDER

Smt.aloka Bandyopadhyay, member.

This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            One Brindaban Chakraborty (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Manager, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Sarbanagar Branch (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

    The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-

            The Complainant took Home Loan of Rs.4,50,000/- on 05.02.2009 from the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Sarbanagar Branch. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant stated in the Complaint, ‘’ the loan carry 2.5% per month. That the payback period for the entire loan amount was 204 month. After that Manager written filling in the certificates in that time the plaintiff can’t understand banking matter clearly. That the opposite party make to much interest which cannot clear after paid but agreed amount. That first time plaintiff verbally talk with Manager and the Manager in that time Rs.505/- invest in the book for the satisfaction of plaintiff. That in 20.03.2014 interest was Rs. 33,538/- and 2014 to 2015 interest Rs.45,579/- after that plaintiff was contact with OP and various time plaintiff contact with opposite party for solution but Manager avoid him. In that time plaintiff understand opposite party avoid him. Plaintiff pay Rs.102 interest and 1,00,000/- from main amount but still now the half loan is not clear.

            So, I am requesting you for back my earnest money.’’

            The OP, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Sarbanagar Branch contested the complaint by filing written statement in which it was submitted that the Complainant is a School Teacher by profession and he availed a House Building Loan from Sarbanagar Branch of B.G.V.B amounting to Rs.4,50,000/-. The terms and conditions of the loan was communicated to the concerned borrower vide sanction letter No. C/HBL/16/09 dated 05.02.2009. The said borrower unconditionally accepted the terms and condition by putting his signature on the sanction letter in the space meant for as a token of acceptance of terms and conditions of sanction.

            OP further stated that it would be mention worthy that terms of sanction specified that the rate of interest of the loan should be 8.5% for the first 5 years and thereafter floating rate of interest will be applicable. Previously when the Complainant made a verbal complaint with the Branch Manager B.G.V.B, Sarbanagar Branch he scrutinized the rate of interest and the borrower was made known that the rate of interest charged was appropriate in accordance the terms of sanction and R.B.I. norms vide letter No. 168/17 dated 10.11.2017. The Deputy Assistant Director in Charge, Dept. of Consumers Affairs & FBP called for a conciliation meeting which was attended by this answering opposite party but not by the Complainant and accordingly the case bearing No. 145/17 (FS) dated 13.09.2017 was dropped. May it kindly be noted that the answering opposite party never charged any excess interest from the Complainant.

            Denying all the contention of the Complainant, the OP prays for dismissal of the case with costs.

            On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper  adjudication of the case :

Points for decision

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

The point to be noted is that the Complainant was directed to file show cause vide order No. 25 dated 04.08.20 as to why the case shall not be dismissed for default. But the record reveals that the Complainant has not filed show cause in compliance with the order dated 04.08.20. The record further reveals that the Complainant not filed show cause even on 18.11.20, 28.01.21, 22.04.21, 27.08.21, 11.11.21, 24.01.22 and 18.04.22. Such being the position the case record is taken up for passing final order. At this moment, Ld. Adv. for the Complainant appears and advance argument on behalf of the Complainant. After hearing the argument 22.04.22 is fixed for passing final order.

Point no.1

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired services of the OP.

On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986 as he hired services of the OP.

Point No.2

            The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Commission.

On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The point is thus disposed of.

     Point Nos. 3&4

        The Complainant took house building loan amounting Rs.4,50,000/- for a period of 204 months which carry 2.5% interest per month. The Complainant cannot understand the banking matter clearly. At the time of taking the loan the OP claimed too much interest than agreed amount and on discussion with the Manager, the Manager credited Rs.505/- for the satisfaction of the Complainant.

        On 20.03.2014, the interest was Rs.33,538/- and in the year 2014-15 it was Rs.45,579/- and for this anomalies the Complainant contacted with the OP but the OP avoided the matter. The Complainant paid 102 installments along with Rs.1,00,000/- for payment of loan amount but found that till date half of the loan amount has not been repaid.

        The OP stated that the Complainant is a school teacher by profession and admittedly that the Complainant has taken house building loan from OP amounting Rs. 4,50,000/- and the terms and conditions of the loan was communicated to the Complainant vide sanction letter No. C/HBL/16/09 dated 05.02.2009. The Complainant accepted the terms and condition by putting his signature in sanctioned letter where it was mentioned that the rate of interest is 8.5% for the first 5 years and thereafter floating interest rate will be applicable but the Complainant has not paid all the installments till date rather filed complaint before the Deputy Assistant Director in Charge, Dept. of Consumers Affairs & FBP but in consideration meeting the Complainant failed to appear and the same was dropped.

        Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines ‘’deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes-

• any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer; and
• deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer.’’

        Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Prayer for dismissal of the consumer complaint is sought.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 20.12.17 and admitted on 02.01.18. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

In the result, the Consumer case fails.

     Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

                                                            Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/220/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP.

        Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

    Dictated & corrected by me.

    Member

Member                                                  Member                                        President.