Date of filing: 27.09.2016 Date of disposal: 15.06.2018
Complainant: 1. Mr. Debasish Chakraborty, R-G/6, Armstrong Avenue, Sec-2B Bidhan Nagar Nr P House, Durgapur- 713 212.
2. Ruma Chakraborty, R-G/6, Armstrong Avenue, Sec-2B Bidhan Nagar Nr P House, Durgapur- 713 212.
Opposite Party: 1. Mr. Devraj Ray, Collection Manager, IDBI Bank Ltd., Retail Assest Centre, Ruma Sweets Building, 1st Floor, Nachan road, Benachity, Durgapur – 713 213.
2. Authorized Signatory, IDBI Bank Ltd., Retail Asset Centre, Ruma Sweets Building, 1st Floor, Nachan Road, Benachity, Durgapur – 713 213.
3. The Chairman, IDBI Bank Ltd., IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005.
Present:
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member: Dr. Tapan Kumar Tripathy.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Anirban Mukherjee
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1, 2 & 3: Ld. Advocate, Sumit Ranjan Bhadra.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainants u/S. 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Ops as the Ops did not rectify their statement and did not refund the excess amount paid by them.
The case of the complainants in brief is that the complainants took loan from IDBI Bank of Rs. 7, 33,577=00 being loan No. 25667510003155 ID 71330126. The complainants have availed the loan for purchasing a flat situated at Flat No. 15, Block –C, 5th Floor, Tanvee Housing Complex, Bamunara, Burdwan. The complainants are paying regularly EMI as fixed by the IDBI Bank but unfortunately EMI are same, the reason best known to the concerned authority. The complainant has deposited Rs. 13,500/- on 10.12.2014 by cheque No. 061274 receipt No. 255543 and another amount of Rs. 8,415/- on 04.06.2014 cheque No. 70682 receipt Np. 255524, total amount Rs. 21,915/- but there is no reflection in their reply statement. The rate of interest @8.75% p.a. floating and number of installments 180, EMI amount Rs. 7,332=00 at the time of taking loan. As per their reply statement on 16.09.2016 Rs. 5, 88,083=00 is payable by complainants as claimed by the IDBI authority. Floating rate is not matching as per terms and conditions of IDBI Authority. The complainant sent legal notice to the Ops before initiation of this case and reply came from their side with respect of such an act. The complainant is a profession engineer and he has suffered huge professional loss due to continuous misconduct and harassment from the Ops which amounts to gross deficiency of service. The aforesaid inaction on the part of the Ops to act in accordance with the terms and conditions as to provider of due service from their part to their customer and with the false assurance, discovered subsequently, is an unambiguous example of grave deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The same has only caused mental agony and harassment to the complainants but also accrued a right to claim compensation thereof. The complainants prayed for compensation for harassment of Rs. 50,000=00 and for mental agony Rs. 50,000=00. The complainants also prayed for direction upon the Ops to clear/rectify their statement and refund excess amount and cost of instant proceeding of Rs. 25,000=00.
The complaint is contested by the Ops by filing conjoint written version denying all the material allegations made by the complainants in the petition of complaint.
The case of the Ops is that it is an undisputed and admitted fact that the complainant have availed a financial assistance on the agreed terms and conditions with floating rate of interest (ROI), means the interest will never be fixed and it is based on the Benchmark Prime Lending Rates (BPLR). The Ops further submit that the complainants have been defaulting in payment of the EMIs on and from the month of December 2013 and the same can be viewed from the statement of accounts as submitted by the complainants in their complaint. It is stated by the Ops that three cheques of complainant of Rs.13, 500=00, Rs. 16,931=00 and Rs. 8,451=00 were duly honoured by their banker and were credited to the account of the complainants. Thereafter the complainants became defaulter towards payment of monthly installments on and from the month of December 2013 and it was duly intimated to the complainants vide letter dated 19.09.2016 that if payments were not made within 29.09.2016 the loan account would be classified as NPA, but the complainants paid no heed. Hence, the loan account was classified as NPA on 08.09.2016 as per prescribed guidelines of the RBI.
The Ops further submit that the complainants are not consumer but are the borrowers of the OP Bank who have availed loan of purchasing the flat and defaulted in the payment and repayment of the dues. Consequently, the loan was recalled vide letter dated 07.11.2016 and notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued to the borrower on 06.12.2016. Therefore the Ops prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost against the complainants.
Decision with reasons:
To prove the case the complainants have filed his evidence-on-affidavit stating the facts which they have already stated in their petition of complaint. They have also filed documents in support of his claim. Ops were asked to file questionnaires against the evidence filed by the complainant, but they were not willing to file the same. The Ops did not file any evidence but they relied on their written version filed by them supported by affidavit as their evidence-on-affidavit. Ops also filed documents in support of their version.
From the pleadings of both sides and the documents filed by the parties, it is clear that the sanction letter dated 04.06.2010 of the OP that the complainant received Bank loan for purchasing a flat as stated in the petition of complaint, it is also clear from the documents filed by the parties that the complainant defaulted in making payment of his installments and the same was communicated to the complainant by the Ops in writing and complainant admitted that he received letters from the Ops stating the fact of defaulter in making payment of EMI. From the documents filed by the Ops it is found that he defaulted for payment from December 2013. The letter dated 10.09.2016 of the OP stating clearly the statements of account and cautioned that if the payments were not made within 29.09.2016, the loan account will be classified as NPA. The copy of letter is annexed and complainant could not deny receiving the same. In that letter OP stated that after several follow ups and recovery visits, complainant make payment of EMI @Rs. 8451/- from 10.06.2014 to 10.10.2014, five installments and total outstanding as on 10.09.2016 was Rs. 5,87,783=00. Therefore, the caution to classify the loan account as NPA by adhearing RBI guidelines is made by the Ops to the complainants. The complainants sent legal notice dated 12.09.2016 but the said notice has no effect as the complainant himself became defaulter in making payment of installments as per terms and agreement of the loan. The OP has made clear statement of account with all documentary evidence and extract from account statement for the period from 01.01.2008 to 19.09.2016 which has been annexed with their written version and from the documents it is clear that there is no deficiency on the part of the OP Bank in providing loan but complainant is a defaulter in repayment of his loan.
Ld. Lawyer for the Ops cited rulings from 1992 (1) C.P.R. 15-17 (St. C.) Rajasthan, page 86-88 that the debtor-creditor relationship between the parties shall not create the status of consumer. Therefore, complainant cannot claim that he is a consumer and cannot pray for compensation on allegation of deficiency in service. He also cited the judgment dated 14.08.2013 of Hon’ble State Commission , TAMILNADU in FA No. 313/2012also to that effect.
After going through the evidence of the complainants and the written version of the Ops and the documents filed by the parties, it is clear to this Forum that the complainant though took loan with some terms and conditions from the OP Bank but failed to comply in repayment of the same as per terms and conditions of the agreement. Therefore, the OP Bank constrained to send notice upon the complainants to classify the complainants’ account as NPA and it is noted in the Bank book on 08.09.2016. The copy of the same is also filed by the Ops. It is also fact that the complainant suppressed this fact and preferred the complaint before this Forum on the allegation of deficiency in service and also prayed for rectify their statement and refund excess amount etc.
We do not find any deficiency on the part of the Ops rather they have clearly stated the fact of defaulter to the complainants with all their documentary evidence and statement of account. Therefore, the complainants are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. After hearing elaborate argument of both parties and on perusal of evidence on record, as well as, documents filed by the parties, we come to the conclusion that the complainants are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint being No. 172/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Ops without any cost.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Jayanti Maitra (Ray) DCDRF, Burdwan
President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
