Kundan Kumar Kumai

This is an appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 preferred against the order and judgement dated 29/06/2022 passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Uttar Dinajpur in CC/26/2019.

Brief facts of the appellant’s case, is that the Respondents/Complainants being husband and wife had applied for HBL on 14/09/2006 from the appellant/bank, which had sanctioned the same on 28/09/2006, under reference no. – 458/06-07 dated 28/9/2006 and one HBL account being no. HBL/0/35/06, LF No. – HBL/67 had been opened. As per sanction letter and loan account pass-book, loan of Rs.6 lakhs had been sanctioned, with interest at the rate of 8.75 per cent per annum, to be repaid in 180 EMIs @ 6000/- (Rupees six thousand) only each. The Respondents/Complainants, had then withdrawn Rs.2,89,012/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty-nine thousand twelve) only on 05/10/2006 and 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) only, on 17/10/2006 and the appellant/bank had deducted Rs. 23,420/- (Rupees twenty-three thousand four hundred twenty) only for insurance purpose.

The respondents/complainants repaid EMIs @ Rs. 6000/- (Rupees six thousand) only per month from 09/12/2006 by cash. After the conversion of the appellant/bank to the present nomenclature, the repayment procedure had been changed as the HBL/ EMI was auto-debited from the Respondent/complainant no. 1’s being account no. 5225010007318. The appellant/bank did not collect EMI from December, 2015 to July, 2016 i.e., 8 months, for which reason, interest was accumulated due to negligence of the appellant/bank. The Respondent/Complainant no.1, found that the interest had been increased to 6,900/- (Rupees six thousand nine hundred) only instead of Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand) only from 31/08/2016, without prior intimation and without any letter. Being aggrieved, the Respondent/Complainant no.1, wrote an application on 21/03/2018 for adjustment of the excess amount deducted as EMI, but with no response. The Respondent/Complainant then submitted a written complaint, before the AD, CA&FBP, U/D RO but the appellant/bank simply replied by a letter dated 06/09/2018 “that the loan account, EMI calculation is fully maintained by the system”, with an illegible copy of the customer account maintenance statement. Finding no alternative, the respondents/complainants filed a complaint before the Ld. DCDRF, Uttar Dinajpur with necessary prayers maintained in the complaint.

The Appellant/bank contested the claim by filing written version wherein they stated that the loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) only, had been sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 14/10/2006, whereby the repayment had to be done by 180 EMIs @ Rs.6235/- (Rupees six thousand two hundred thirty-five) only, but the Respondents/Complainants started repaying the same @ Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand) only, per month by cash and continued the same by deducting from the salary account. After upgradation of the computer operation system, it was detected that the Respondents/Complainants were paying less amount and the system revised EMI to Rs.6900/- (Rupees six thousand nine hundred) only and started deducting the same by auto-debit facility since August, 2016. The EMIs were therefore increased due to less repayment, floating rate of interest and non-deduction of the EMI in the system from December, 2015 to July, 2016. Therefore, there was not deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and prayed for dismissal of the case.

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the evidence on record the Ld. DCDRF passed the impugned order, allowing the case and directing the appellant to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only and to refund Rs.51,000/- (Rupees fifty-one thousand) only within one month from the date of order and restrained from debiting any further amount from the savings/salary account of the Respondent/Complainant no.1.

Being aggrieved by the above order, the appellant preferred the instant appeal on the ground that the Ld. DCDRF, Uttar Dinajpur erred in law and facts while passing the impugned order.

                                                           Decisions with reasons

Ld. Advocate for the appellant at the time of final hearing, submitted that the loan of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) only, had been sanctioned, vide sanction letter dated 14/10/2006, wherein the EMI had been fixed at Rs.6235/- (Rupees six thousand two hundred thirty-five) only, payable in 180 instalments. The Respondents/Complainants knowing fully well about the above amount of EMI, but went on depositing @ 6000/- (Rupees six thousand) only per month. Thereafter, the upgradation of the computer operating system, the EMI had been revised to Rs.6,900/- (Rupees six thousand nine hundred) only which was deducted from August, 2016. Hence, for the above reason the impugned order was prayed to be set aside.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondents/Complainants on the other hand submitted at the time of final hearing that the loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) only, had been sanctioned on 28/09/2006 under reference no.– 458/06-07 dated 28/9/2006 @ rate of 6000/- (Rupees six thousand) only per month. It was further argued that since December, 2015 to July, 2016 i.e., 8 months EMI, had not been deducted for which reason the appellant/bank had increased the EMI to Rs.6900/- (Rupees six thousand nine hundred) only and he has relied in the Maxim “Nullus Commodum Capere Protect De Injuria Sua Propria”. He has thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

To start with, the loan amount of 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) only and the tenure of the repayment of the loan of 180 months is not disputed. The only point of dispute is with regard to the amount of EMI to be repaid by the Respondents/Complainants. The Respondents/Complainants had relied on the pass-book entries wherein Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) only per month had been mentioned as the EMI for the loan whereas the appellant/bank has relied on the sanction letter dated 14/10/2006, wherein the EMI had been fixed at Rs.6235/- (Rupees six thousand two hundred thirty-five) only. The Respondents/Complainants had repaid the loan from December, 2006 till September, 2015 @ Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand) only whereas no EMI had been deducted from December, 2015 to July, 2016. Thereafter, from August, 2016 the appellant/bank started deducting the EMI @ Rs.6900/- (Rupees six thousand nine hundred) only. Therefore, from the above deductions it can be clearly visible that the EMI amount of Rs.6235/- (Rupees six thousand two hundred thirty-five) only had never been paid nor demanded by the appellant/bank. In fact, when the EMI @ 6000/- (Rupees six thousand) only had been paid from 2006 to 2015, for about long 10 years, the appellant/bank nowhere demanded the repayment @ Rs.6235/- (Rupees six thousand two hundred thirty-five) only, sanctioned vide letter dated 14/10/2006. In other words, it means that the sanctioned letter dated 14/10/2006, was never acted upon by either of the parties. Following which the grievance, raised by the appellant/bank stands nullified. That apart no explanation had been provided by the appellant/bank as to why the EMIs had not been auto-deducted from December, 2015 to July, 2016.

From the above observations, it becomes clear that the appellant/bank had never insisted for the repayment of loan @ Rs. 6235/- (Rupees six thousand two hundred thirty-five) only and there is no explanation forthcoming from the appellant/bank as to why no EMIs had been deducted from December, 2015 to July, 2016. Hence, the explanation forthcoming from the appellant/bank that the increase in EMI amounting to Rs. 6,900/- (Rupees six thousand nine hundred) only per month from August, 2016, attributing the same for the above reasons does not become acceptable. The Respondents/Complainants being valid customers of the appellant/bank should not be treated like an ATM machine from which cash could be withdrawn, imposing upon them the penalties committed by the appellant/bank’s own system and from their errors and exceptions.

Under the circumstances, the Respondents/Complainants cannot be attributed the amounts which had accumulated due no fault of the Respondents/Complainants. Therefore, the excess amount deducted by the appellant/bank cannot be justified and the same has been rightly directed to be refunded in the impugned order. As a result, the instant appeal fails.

It is therefore

                                                                ORDERED

That the instant appeal and the same be dismissed on contest, but without cost.

The impugned order is hereby upheld.

Copy of the Order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Copy of the Order be sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Uttar Dinajpur for necessary information.

Statutory deposits be returned from whom received.

Jt. Registrar, Siliguri Circuit Bench of WBSCDRC, to make necessary arrangement for refunding the above amount.