BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 8th day of March 2017
Filed on : 10-10-2014
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.761/2014
Between
Salim C.H., : Complainant
S/o. C.K. Hamza, (By Adv. Philip T. Varghese,
Krishna Kripa, Club Junction, T.D. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin,
Edapally, Ernakulam. Pin – 682 011)
And
Punjab National Bank, : Opposite party
rep. by its Chief Manager, (By adv. C. Ajith kumar, Chamber-
Circle Office, 2nd Floor, 214, KHCAA, Golden Jubilee
40/1461, Market road, Chamber Complex, High Court
Ernakulam-682 011) Building, Ernakulam. )
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant's case
2. The complainant Shri. C.H. Salim availed an overdraft facility of Rs. 2,00,000/- from M/s. Panchab National Bank, the opposite party. The overdraft facility was sanctioned by the opposite party on the security of immovable property which were already mortgaged to the opposite party as security for the credit facilities availed. The complainant who was an employee of the opposite party bank was made to sign blank loan agreement forms. The complainant was regularly remitting the interest applicable to the overdraft facility availed to him. On 09-01-2014, the complainant was served with a letter intimating that the drawing power of the account ought to have been reduced by Rs. 1,300/- each month and interest had to be served separately. Aforesaid letter further stated that the DP available as on 09-01-2014 was only Rs. 1,42,800/- whereas the balance in the account was Rs. 2,00,000/-. The complainant was asked to bring the balance with the drawing power. The demand that the complainant had to remit Rs. 1,300/- each month contrary to the original terms of sanction. The opposite party debited the complainant's staff OD account with Rs. 58,500/- on 03-02-2014 and therefore the OD limit was increased by an amount of Rs. 58,500/- without his consent or intimation. Since the O.D. limit was increased the complainant became unable to withdraw any amount from the account. He was not even to withdraw his salary in the month of February and March 2014. The complainant was unable to meet his family needs and expenses. The opposite party was not justified in withdrawing the entire amount in a lump sum from the complainant's salary account without any notice. By the unilateral action of denying the salary of the complainant for two months, the opposite party had committed gross deficiency in service. The sudden debit of a huge sum in his salary account resulted in the virtual freezing of the complainant's salary. The complainant had to pay additional penal charges @ 2% due to the wrongful act of the opposite party. Even though the complainant approached the banking Ombudsman, the complaint was closed without hearing the complainant. The opposite party had rendered themselves liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and hardships caused by them due to the unfair trade practice. The complainant therefore prays for a direction to the opposite party to refund Rs. 10,000/- being the interest collected by them in the complainant's account at 4% p.a. additionally from 22-06-2013 till date and to allow the complainant to realize compensation and costs of the proceedings.
3. Notice was issued to the opposite party who appeared and contested the matter by filing their version contending inter-alia as follows:
4. The complainant had availed a loan linked overdraft facility with a limit of Rs. 2,00,00/- on 08-03-2010 on condition that the drawee power is to be reduced on every month by Rs. 1,300/- and the interest be served every month separately. The opposite party found that the balance in the account of the complainant was continuously in excess of the sanctioned limit since 31-10-2013 and the account was in the verge of non-performing account. Therefore the opposite party transferred Rs. 4,673/- from the complainant's O.D account and brought the balance within the limit and had issued a letter to the complainant requesting him to bring the balance within the drawing power before 25-01-2014 and availed the limit in future within the reduced drawing power, as per the terms of sanction of loan. But the complainant did not heed to that request. The allegation that the opposite party had debited Rs. 58,500/- from the O.D. account of the complainant on 03-02-2014 is incorrect. The complainant had violated the repayment terms causing hardships to the opposite party. The rate of interest charged was in accordance with the terms of loan contract. The opposite party had committed any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice. The complaint is therefore sought to be dismissed.
5. The evidence in this consists of the oral evidence of PW1, the complainant and Exbts. A1 to A8 on the side of the complainant. The opposite party marked Ex bts. B1 to B5 documents and no oral evidence was adduced. Heard both sides.
6. The following issues were settled for consideration
i. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii. Reliefs and costs
7. Issue No. i. The complainant was examined as PW1. He was working with the opposite party bank since last 30 years. He has no detail knowledge with regard to the terms and conditions of loan transaction between the opposite party and himself. Exbt. B1 is the terms and conditions of the overdraft housing loan sanctioned to the complainant. As per term No. 7 in Exbt. B1 it is seen stated that the DP is reduced every month (166 months )by Rs. 1,300/- so as to liquidate the OD limit in full at the time of retirement, interest to be serviced every month separately. The complainant admitted such terms and conditions. Exbt. B2 is the loan agreement executed by the complainant with the opposite party. PW1 admitted that he received Exbt. A1 from the bank and that on his refusal to make the payment as per the letter an amount of Rs. 58,500/- was debited from his account. Exbt. B4 (a) is the order issued by the banking Ombudsman in connection with the allegation made by the complainant herein.
8. On going through the documents filed by the complainant and the opposite party and the evidence of the complainant tendered as PW1, we find that the opposite party had not committed any deficiency in service as against the complainant. The opposite party bank had only followed the terms and conditions contained in the terms of loan agreement. We therefore find the issue against the complainant.
9. Issue No. ii. Having found issue No. 1 against the complainant we find that the complaint deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 8th day of March 2017.
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent
APPENDIX
Complainants Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of letter dt. 09-01-2014
A2 : Copy of letter dt. 09-01-2014
A3 : True copy of Customer account Ledger
Report from 01-04-2010 to 30-04-2014
A4 : Letter dt. 06-02-2014
A5 : copy of reference regarding letter
dt. 06-02-2014
A6 : Copy of complaint against PNB,
Alapuzha
A7 : Copy of loans & advances
circular No. 75
A8 : Retail assets Division circular
dt. 01-08-2014
Opposite party's Exhibits:
Exbt. B1 : True copy of letter dt. 08-03-2010
B2 Copy of letter dt. 08-03-2010
B3 : Statement of account for the period
from 20-04-2010 to 09-03-2015
B4 : Copy of letter dt. 02-06-2014
B5 : True copy of L & A circular No. 17/09
B6 :
Depositions:
PW1 : Salim C.H.
Copy of order despatched on : By Post: By hand:
