Sri Jagadish Chandra Barman, Member,
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the Complainant may be stated in brief as follows:-
Being aggrieved upon the O. P. Bank previously known as United Bank of India, at present it is known as Punjab National Bank, the Complainant [Swadesh Ranjan Banik] filed this instant case being no. C.C.NO.166/2019 on 16.09.2019 before the Ld. Commission, Baruipur, 24 Pgs. South for proper adjudication. As per statement of the complaint petition, the Complainant is an employee of Life Insurance Corporation of India. He took a House Building Loan of Rs. 4,00,000.00 [ Rs. Four lakh] only in March 2006. As per Agreement under United Housing Loan Scheme signed on 18th day of March 2006, it was fixed to clear the loan within twenty [20] years under Loan account no. 0785300500007. Complainant`s monthly EMI was settled Rs. 3600.00 only per month. EMI amount had been deducted from his savings account vide no.-0785010106187. The Complainant has mentioned that there had been sufficient amount always in his account but the O. P. Bank did not deduct his EMI regularly. The Complainant has also mentioned that the O. P. Bank deducted EMI since April 2006 and it is reflected in his submitted photo copies of the Savings Account Passbook vide no-078501016187. The O. P. Bank deducted different financial amount from his Savings Account like Rs. 3850/-, 3824/-, 3995/-, 4000/-, 4950/- and so on without any reason. It is also mentioned in his complaint petition that the O. P. Bank deducted sometimes 2 EMI/3 EMI/4 EMI at a time. It is mentioned in the petition with figures like on 4.8.2006 Rs. 7200.00, on 28.2.2007 Rs. 14400/-, on 4.5.2007 Rs. 10800/-, on 12.10.2007 Rs.7200/-and so on, where deducted by the O.P Bank from his savings Account .
As per the complaint, the Complainant requested the O. P. Bank several times to inform him the actual rate of interest for the loan amount, but the O. P. Bank did not reply. As a result of deduction according to the floating rate of interest, outstanding balance was not reduced month wise and extra interest has been accrued since inception. There is also discrepancy between the outstanding figures submitted by the O. P. Bank and the Complainant.
As per petition that this dispute was placed before the Lok Adalat of Diamond Harbour on 09.03.2019 Vide case no.151/2019. It is clearly mentioned in the order no-1 dated 09.03.2019 of the The Lok Adalat, Diamond Harbour, South 24 Parganas that the complainant Swadesh Ranjan Banik was interested then to clear the due amount of the loan at a time. Then the O. P. Bank Manager Sri Indranil Mukherjee [Recovery] assured before the Hon`ble Judge , Social Worker, Diamond Harbour Lok Adalat that he would take initiative to solve the disputes. The matter was thus disposed off without solution. But the O. P. Bank did not keep the promise of settlement later.
Thereafter, the Complainant filed a Writ Petition before Hon’ble Kolkata High Court vide case no- WP16206 OF 2019 against the O. P. Bank and others. But the Hon`ble High Court did not enter into the disputes because there was great difference in the figures submitted by both sides. O. P. Bank demanded Rs.2,95,000.00 only as due amount, whereas the complainant mentioned Rs. 1,00,000.00 was then as due amount. Hence, the matter was disposed off by the Hon`ble Justice of the Hon`ble High Court, Kolkata without issuing any order.
Besides, the United Bank of India now Punjab National Bank did not provide the account statement of his loan to the Complainant till the date of filing of this instant case. It is mentioned in a daily order of the Ld. Commission that as a result of changing the name of the United Bank of India as Punjab National Bank, necessary amendment was done in the cause title by the Complainant. The petitioner filed a fresh complaint petition on 31.3.2022 before this Ld. Commission. It was accepted by this Ld. Commission and the same was received by the O. P. Bank.
The Complainant filed a statement of account before this Ld. Commission. The O. P. Bank also filed the statement of account. But there is a great difference of the due amount. As per statement of account submitted without affidavit on 13 Sept. 2022 by the O. P. Bank, that there were dues amount Rs. 2,48,887.75 till 31.8.2022 to be paid by the Complainant. This statement is started from 12.10.2007 and up to 31.8.2022.
On the other hand, the Complainant filed on 10 Feb. 2023 a statement of account with evidence on affidavit. As per statement submitted by the Complainant that there is no due amount to pay as EMI. The amount of loan Rs. 4,00,000.00 was cleared with accrued interest with the paid EMIs of Feb.2020 [ 21.02.2020, 28.02.2020 and 29.02.2020 ] . Not only that there has been deducted excess amount of Rs. 79,684.00 only by the O. P. Bank from the account of the Complainant. This statement started from 18th April 2006 and continued up to 06.9.2022. The O. P. Bank has not challenged the statement of the Petitioner/Complainant.
Finding no other alternative, the Complainant/Petitioner has filed this C.C. No- 166/2009 before the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas for getting proper adjudication and relief[s] as below:-
- To issue an Order to the O. P. to refund the amount already paid by the Petitioner/Complainant.
- To issue an Order to the O. P. to pay compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 50,000.00 only to the Petitioner/Complainant for O. P`s unfair trade practice and deficiency in service;
- To issue an Order to the O. P. to pay litigation cost …….. to the Complainant/Petitioner;
- To issue any other order to the O. P. Bank as the Ld. Commission may deem fit and proper.
Thereafter, the Ld. Commission has sent the show cause notices upon the O. P. and the O. P. Punjab National Bank has received the notice. Accordingly, the Opposite Party P.N. Bank filed written version on 12.12.2019. As per W. V., the O. P. has stated that this complaint case is not maintainable and there is no cause of action. This complaint case is based on false, mala fide, motivated, misconceived and frivolous. The O. P. Bank has also denied each and every allegation mentioned in the complaint petition. Therefore, this case should be dismissed in limine with exemplary cost.
But the Opposite Party has admitted in the W. V. that the Petitioner/Complainant is a borrower of House Building Loan of Rs. 4,00,000.00 only vide Loan Account no. 0785300500007 of the United Bank of India now Punjab National Bank located at Kulpi Branch under police station Kulpi, Dist. South 24 Parganas. The loan was taken by the Complainant in March 2006 and it was then decided to clear the loan amount in 20 years. It is also admitted by the O. P. Bank that initially monthly EMI was fixed Rs. 3600.00 only and it has been deducted from his loan account no- 0785010106187. But as per guide lines of the Reserve Bank of India, EMI amount has been varied sometimes from Rs. 3600.00 only to a different figure due to change of the rate of interest. The O. P. Bank has also filed the statement of account as per the direction of the Ld. Commission. The statement of account was submitted on 13/9/2022 without evidence on affidavit by the O. P. Bank. As per statement, there are due amount of Rs. 2,48,887.75 only till 31.8.2022 to be paid by the Complainant. This statement is for the period from 12.10.2007 and continued up to 31.8.2022.
Hence, there is no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice/negligence of the O. P. Bank and the Petitioner/Complainant is not entitled to get back any amount, cost of litigation and compensation amount as prayed for. Therefore, the complaint petition should be dismissed with exemplary cost.
Upon the above averments of the complaint petition, w. v., evidences, statement of accounts etc. of both sides, the following points are formulated:-
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
1]. Is the complainant a ‘Consumer’?
2] Is the O. P. Bank guilty of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice as alleged by the Complainant?
3] Is the complainant entitled to get relief /reliefs as prayed for?
EVIDENCES, W. V., STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE COMPLAINANT AND O.P.
The Complainant filed a prayer to treat his complaint petition as his evidence on affidavit on 12.12.2019 and it was allowed, Statement of account on 10 Feb. 2023, and the O.P. filed W. V. on 12.12.2019, Evidence on affidavit on 27.01.2020 and statement of account on 13 Sept. 2022.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS OF THE POINTS 1, 2 and 3.
POINT NO-1
In relation to point no. 1, “Is the complainant a ‘Consumer’?”- It is very much relevant to say that the Complainant is an employee of Life Insurance Corporation of India. He took a House Building Loan of Rs. 4,00,000.00 [ Rs. Four lakh] only in March 2006. As per Agreement under United Housing Loan Scheme signed on 18th day of March 2006 , it was fixed to clear the loan within twenty [20] years under Loan account no. 0785300500007. His monthly EMI was settled Rs. 3600.00 only per month. EMI had been deducted from his savings account vide no.-0785010106187.
Hence, there is no doubt that the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ under Section 2[7] of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
So point no. 1 is decided in favour of the Complainant and against the O. P.
POINT NO-2
In relation to point no-2, “ Is the O. P. Bank guilty of deficiency in service, and unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant?” –it is very much worthy to opine that the Complainant applied to the O. Ps. for a loan of Rs.4,00,000.00 only and it was provided by the O. P. Bank. The loan was taken by the Complainant in March 2006 and it was then decided to clear the loan amount in 20 years. It is also admitted by the O. P. Bank that monthly EMI was fixed Rs. 3600.00 only and it has been deducted from his loan account no- 0785010106187 . As per guide lines of the Reserve Bank of India, EMI amount has been varied sometimes from Rs. 3600.00 only to a different amount . The O. P. Bank has also filed the statement of account which was submitted without evidence on affidavit on 13 Sept. 2022 by the O. P. Bank, and as per statement, there are huge due amount Rs. 2,48,887.75 only till 31.8.2022 to be paid by the Complainant. This statement is for the period from 12.10.2007 and continued up to 31.8.2022.
It is notable that the Complainant was very much interested to pay the due amount through the Lok Adalat at a time. But the O. P. Bank did not co-operate later as per assurance. Even in the Hon’ble High Court, Kolkata, the O. P. Bank did not solve the disputes. All efforts were in vain due to ulterior motive of the O. P. Bank.
However, after perusal of the photo copies of the Savings Account of the Complainant, it is found that the O. P. Bank has deducted the EMI since April 2006 as per available data of the photo copies of the account ID 0785010106187 INR 07520. But the statement of the O. P. Bank started from 12.10.2007 and continued to 31.8.2022.No deduction has shown for the period from the month of April 2006 to Sept. 2007. So there is deficiency of service/negligence to deduct EMI amount for 18 [eighteen] months on the part of the O. P. Bank. The O.P. Bank has also submitted the statement of account without evidence on affidavit. It indicates that the O. P. Bank has nothing to challenge the statement filed by the Complainant. Hence, the statement of the O. P. Bank, is thus incorrect and rejected. The Statement of the Complainant is accepted by the Ld. Bench of the DCDRC, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas.
So point no. 2 is decided in favour of the Complainant and against the O. P.
POINT NO-3
In relation to point no-3, “Is the complainant entitled to get relief /reliefs as prayed for?”-It is very much worthy to mention that loan amount of Rs. 400000 was sanctoned by the O. P. Bank and the complainant paid all EMIs since April 2006. We find that the loan amount has been paid by the Complainant with the EMIs paid in the month of Feb. 2020. As per the datas available in the photo copies of the savings account no- ID 0785010106187 INR 07520 of Swadesh Ranjan Banik , it is found that due to the negligence / deficiency in service/Unfair Trade Practice, O. P. Bank has deducted excess amount Rs.79,689/- only from the account of the complainant. Even, the O. P. Bank has filed all incorrect and incomplete statement of account before this Ld. Commission. Hence, it is clear to us that there is negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Punjab National Bank and for which the complainant has been suffering from mental pain, harassment etc.
Hence, the Complainant is entitled to get relief[s] as prayed in the complaint petition.
So, point no. 3 is also decided in favour of the Complainant and against the O. Ps.
As a result, the complaint case is succeeded.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the O. P. Bank with a Litigation Cost of Rs.10, 000=00 ( Rs. Ten thousand) only to be paid to the Complainant by the O.P within 60 days from the date of issuing this Order.
The O. P. bank is directed to pay Rs. 50,000.00 [Rs. Fifty thousand] only as compensation amount for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and negligence occurred on behalf of the O.P. within 60 days from the date of issuing this order.
The Opposite Party is also directed to stop the EMI immediately and refund the excess amount to the complainant Rs. 79,684.00 [ Rs. Seventy nine thousand six hundred and eighty four ] only paid to the O. P. Bank with 10% p. a. simple interest from 29.02.2020 till the date of final realization.
The Opposite Party Bank is also directed to return the Original Deed of Conveyance being no-I 2519, original LIC Policies bearing nos.-412074893, 416480426, 416480911, 412613527 etc. submitted by the Complainant to the O. P. Bank as a collateral securities within a month [30] days from the date of issuing this order.
The Complainant is at liberty to file an Execution Case against the O. P. Bank before this Ld. Commission for non-compliance of the order by the O. P. after expiry of 60 days.
Let copies of the order be supplied to all the parties concerned in either speed post /registered post free of cost as per rule.
The final order be also available in www.confonet.nic.in .
Prepared and Corrected by me.
( Shri Jagadish Chandra Barman)
(MEMBER)
