Punjab

Sangrur

CC/26/2018

Balwinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Bank of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.V.K.Verma

02 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

 

                                                Complaint No.  26

                                                Instituted on:    23.01.2018

                                                Decided on:       02.07.2018

 

Balwinder Kumar son of Late Shri Mohinder Gir, resident of Ward No.2A, Janta Nagar, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur, through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite party

For the complainant  :       Shri V.K.Verma, Adv.

For opposite party    :       Shri Bhushan Garg, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

               

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Balwinder Kumar,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant is a consumer of the OP by obtaining a house loan of Rs.6,00,000/- in the month of June, 2016, which was repayable in 20 years at the equated monthly instalment of Rs.5634/- and the Op allotted loan account number 05936015007395 to the complainant. At the time of obtaining the loan the Op also got mortgaged the property in favour of the OP. The grievance of the complainant is that on 5.9.2017, he approached the OP for enhancement of the loan amount and proposal bearing number 05P3000043 was sent to the higher officials of the bank for sanction/approval, but the grievance of the complainant is that the OP denied the enhancement of the loan amount to the complainant saying that he is not a good customer as his loan account is NPA and SMA for the last 12 months, whereas the case of the complainant is that he has been regularly paying the loan amount to the OP.  Another grievance of the complainant is that since the monthly instalment of the loan was Rs.5634/-, but the OP was deducting Rs.5680/- or Rs.5681/-, which is said to be illegal and without any basis. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to correct the data of the loan account and further to adjust the excess amount so recovered from the complainant and to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint, that the complainant is not a  consumer and that the complainant has suppressed material facts and as such has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has taken the loan in question from the OP, but it is stated that the complainant did not pay the instalments of the loan amount in time as the complainant was not having sufficient balance in his saving bank account from where the instalment was being deducted.  Regarding the enhancement loan, the OP has stated that the RAG branch Sangrur refused to sanction the loan vide letter dated 29.9.2017 as the complainant has become SMA from September 2016 to February 2017 and NPA twice in last 12 months.  Further it is stated that the complainant has borrowed the loan amount with the floating rate of interest from the OP as such the interest is paid on the base rate with monthly rest subject to change in base rate announced by the bank/RBI from time to time.  It is stated further that after the declaration of NPA account, the computerised system automatic upload the information on the CIBIL data. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by obtaining a house loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from the OP in the month of June, 2016 and further it is admitted that the complainant applied for enhancement of the loan amount on 5.9.2017, but the same was refused by the higher authorities of the bank on the ground that the loan account of the complainant has become SMA from September 2016 to February 2017 and remained NPA twice in last 12 months, as such, it is stated that the enhancement of the loan has rightly been denied by the bank.

 

6.             It is worth mentioning here that in these days whole of the system is computerised one and the bank being a public sector bank has to do nothing against the complainant.  It is own case of the OP that the OP sent the proposal for enhancement of the loan to the higher authorities i.e. RAG Branch Sangrur for sanction of the enhancement of the loan amount, but the RAG branch Sangrur refused to sanction the proposal on the ground that the complainant remained NPA twice in last 12 months. This contention of the OP is also supported from the email sent by the Cluster Head to the complainant on 29.9.2017 and further this is also supported by the affidavit of Uday Kumar Singh, Ex.OP-1 on record.  As such, we feel that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP in refusing for enhancement of the loan to the complainant. It is worth mentioning here that since the loan of the complainant was on floater basis, as such, in these cases the amount of instalment goes up and down on the basis of the changes in the base rate announced by the Bank/RBI from time to time.  As such, we feel that there is no deficiency in service on this count also.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the case and dismiss the complaint. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 2, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member