O R D E R
SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER.
This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Briefly stated facts of the complaint is that the complainant had availed a Cash Credit Loan from the 1st opp.party for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- vide Loan No. C.C.98 pledging the property owned by him and his son. The rate of interest was 16% and thereafter it was reduced by the order of RBI. Periodical payments were made by the complainant and in total he had remitted an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- as on 13..1..2010. as per the direction of the 1st opp.party the complainant submitted application for return of documents. On 20.4.2010 the complainant was called to the Head Office of the Bank and thereafter 1st opp.party issued a new memo inserting huge amount as interest. No amount is payable to the Bank by the complainant. The opp.parties are bound to return the document pledged by the complainant.. The act of opp.parties is against natural justice and there is deficiency in service from the part of opp.parties. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for return of documents of property mortgaged by the complainant and for getting compensation Rs.1,00,000/- and cost Rs.10,000/- and other reliefs.
The 1st and 2nd opp.parties filed joint version contenting the allegation raised by the complainant. The opp.party sanctioned accommodation for cash credit account for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-.[ Seven lakhs] The term of the said loan was one year and it was renewed every year periodically Last renewal was up to 15.4.2002. On expiry of the period the opp.parties issued demand notice and requested the complainant to clear the dues. Though the complainant made remittanceS the overdue balance in the account still remain unpaid. The allegation made by the complainant that he had remitted 16,00,000/- to the Bank and the opp.party denied to return the documents is utter false.
Para 5 of the complaint is not correct and hence denied. The real fact is that the complainant has lodged a complaint before the President of the Bank. The President summoned him and the Manager in his chamber on 20.4.2010 and reviewed the position. A detailed explanation was made and the same was convinced and satisfied by the complainant. The complainant expressed his readiness to clear the dues as demanded by the bank.
Cash credit is an accommodation allowed in the account to be operated for a specific period within the limit permitted . During the period, the customer is free to make any number of withdrawal and multiple remittances are permitted.
The complainant, had made 24 Nos. of withdrawals to the tune of Rs.9,66,500/- and 13 Nos. of remittances to the tune of Rs.4,73,1009/- during the period of operation On the expiry of period that is from 15.7.2002 onwards penal interest of 2% over and above the usual is levied. As per NPA norms interest is not capitalized . The same is worked out and shown separately so as to realize at the time of remittance/closure of the account . The transactions of this branch has been computerized with effect from 4.2.2006. Since the account is classified as NPA, the outstanding balance alone is migrated to the system excluding interest from the date of over due. Interest and other charges for NPA period outstanding was noted separately in the then existing ledger itself. This fact has been informed the complainant several time in person. The present dues to be realized from the complainant as on date is Rs.11,48,419/- interest at the rate of 18% from 1.4.2010. The bank is ready to release the documents deposited as the security for CC loan accommodation on clearance of the dues and other charges applicable.
There is no cause of action as alleged. No deficiency in service from the part of opp.party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost.
The complainant filed affidavit
From the side of the complainant PW.1 was examined and Exts. P1 to P8 marked.
From the side of the opp.parties DW.1 wass examined and Exts. D1 to D5 marked.
Heard both sides.
Points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opp.parties?
2. Compensation and cost.
POINTS 1 AND 2
Admittedly the complainant had availed CC Loan for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the opp.parties and periodical remittances were madeby the complainant.
The contention raised by the opp.parties is that though the complainant had made remittances the over due balance in the Account still remain un paid. The Statement made by the complainant that he had remitted Rs.16,00,000/-[sixteen lakhs] to the Bank and the opp.party denied to return the documents is utter false. The complainant made withdrawal to the tune of Rs.9,66,500/- and made remittance only to the tune of Rs.4,73,100/- during the period of operation . On the expirty of the period he had made remittances and it comes to the tune of Rs.11,38,203/-. On the date of complaint, the complainant’s account shows a debt balance of Rs.11,48,419/- + interest at the rate of 18% from 1.4.2010. The learned counsel for the opp.party would argue that the cash credit is an accommodation allowed in the account to be operated for a specific period within the limit permitted and multiple withdrawals are also permitted. Thus the complainant had made 24 numbers of withdrawals to the total amount of Rs.9,66,500/-
It is an admitted fact that the extent of loan amount allowed to the complainant by the opp.party is Rs.7,00,000/- . It is clear from the version filed by opp.parties and oral testimony of DW.1 that loan amount allowed to the complainant by the opp.party is only Rs.7,00,000/- How the complainant can withdraw Rs.9,66,500/- from the said loan account of the complainant which can be operated only to the maximum limit of 7 lakhs. Even though the opp.parties contented that the statement made the complainant that he had totally remitted Rs.16,11,300/- is an utter false, DW.1 had admitted while in cross examination that “ “complainant sâ tem¬ CXp-hsc 16,11,300/þcq-]-h-chpv”
The learned counsel for the opp.party argued that the interest at the applicable rate are worked out in the account during the period of operation on quarterly basis and capitalized to the account. As and when the account becomes over due and NPA penal interest at the rate of 2% above the normal rate is charged. As per the NPA norms interest is not capitalized and same it is worked out and shown separately so as to realize at the time of remittance or closure of the accounts.
The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the argument advanced by the opp.party regarding the non calculation of interest is false. Ext.P2 and P3 shows that the debit interest of the loan was capitalized with loan amount. On perusal of Exts. P2 and P3 we are also convinced that the debit balance is capitalized
The learned counsel of opp.party further argued that as the transaction of the opp.parties has been computerized with effect from 4.2.2006 and since the account has been classified as NPA the outstanding balance also is migrated to the system excluding interest from the date of NPA. Interest and other charges from NPA period outstanding was noted separately in the then existing ledger itself and this fact was intimated to the complainant several times.
According to the complainant he had already remitted the entire amount as directed by the opp.party Bank. Ext. P1 to P5 clearly shows that the complainant had remitted all the due amount demanded by the Bank and the last payment of Rs.1000/- made on 31.3.2010. Ext. P 6 is the application dated 31.3.2000 submitted by the complainant for the return of title deed and other documents.
Another contention of the complainant is that Rs.50,000/- was not recorded in the statement of account of the Bank. The complainant had produced Ext.P8 receipt dated 17.2.2007 showing the remittance of Rs.50,000/-while in cross examination the learned counsel for the complainant put the question that “Bank  hc-hp-h¶ ]Ww statement of account  ImWn-¡m¯Xv Bank s\ I_-fn-¸n-¡p-¶-Xn\p thn-bm-Wpv?”
DW.1 answered that’icn-bà ‘The learned counsel put further question that complainant AS¨ ]Ww bYm-k-abw record sN¿msX complainant  \n¶v IqSp-X ]Ww CuSm-¡p-¶-Xn\p thn-bm-Wv {ian-¨-sX-¶p-]-dbp¶p a AÃ. On a careful verification of Ext. D4 we find that receipt of Rs.50,000/- on 17.2.2007 was credited in the account of the complainant and it is clearly recorded in the statement of accounts. Hence the allegation of the complainant regarding this aspect will not sustain.
Another contention of the complainant is that the Bank authorities purposefully omitited Rs.8,11,300/- which was remitted as per Ext.P1 pass book from the statement of account and this act is a grave offence committed by the bank officials. On perusal of Ext. P1 and statement of accounts produced by the opp.parties we are convinced that the remittance of Rs.8,11,300/- was excluded from the statement of accounts.
From records produced by the opp.parties itself it is obvious that Rs.7,00,000/- only was sanctioned by the opp.party as per CC account No.98 . No evidence produced by the opp.parties to show that the complainant made withdrawal of Rs.9,66,500/- This statement was
made without considering the repayments during that period Hence the argument that the complainant made withdrawal of excess amount than the sanctioned CC loan amount will not sustain
The opp.parties have already admitted that the complainant had remitted Rs.16,11,300/-. The opp.parties cannot be justified in the non repayment of pledged documents and demanding more amount for releasing the documents.,
Considering all the facts, circumstances and entire evidence before us we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service from the part of opp.parties. The point found accordingly.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The opp.parties are directed to return the title deed of pledged property and other documents to the complainant forthwith. The opp.parties are further directed to pay compensation R.50,000/- and cost Rs.1500/-
The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of receipt of the order.
Dated this the day of September, 2012.
G. VASANTHAKUMARI : Sd/-
R. VIJAYAKUMAR : Sd/-
ADV. RAVISUSHA :Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
I N D E X
List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. - Madhavan
P1. – Pass book
P2. - Balance statement dated 6.6.2008
P3. – Balance statement dated 12.8.2009
P4. – Receipt for 29,000/- dated 12.11.2009
P5. – Application dated 31.3.2010
P6. - Receipt dated 31.3.2012
P7. – Hearing letter dated 20.4.2010
P8. – Receipt dated 17.2.2007
List of witnesses for the opp.parties
DW.1. – Santhoshkumar
List of documents for the opp.parties
D1. – Photocopy of Registered letter dated 19.7.2005
D2. – Demand notice dt. 25.2.2006
D3. – Final notice
D4. – Copy of schedule of accounts
D5. – statement of accounts.
