Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/189/2021

Surajbhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Manoj Kumar Yadav

05 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI

                              

                                                                Complaint No.        : 189 of 2021.

                                                               Date of Institution:  16.08.2021.

                                                                Date of Order          :   05.03.2024

Surajbhan son of Sh. Ram Singh, resident of village Mehrana (168), P.O. Dhani Phogat, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.                                                                                                          ….Complainant.

                                      Versus        

Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, Charkhi Dadri, near Rose Garden, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri, through its Manager.

…...Opposite Party (OP).

 

                                      COMPLAINT UNDER THE

                                      CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -    Hon’ble Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President

                Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:     Sh. Navdeep, Adv. for complainant.

                Sh. Karamvir Singh Chhikara, Adv. for OP.

ORDER:-

 

1.                The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had taken a FD A/c No. 057700PU00008420 with Customer ID 452497651 dated 03.04.2018 and deposited a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- for one year under the interest rate 7.25% p.a. and his FD got matured on 03.04.2019. It is averred that again the bank renewed FD on 03.04.2019 amounting to Rs.8,52,383/- @ 7.25% interest upto 03.04.2020  with maturity amount of Rs. 9,15,881/-. It is averred that on 05.03.2020, complainant took the loan of Rs. 7,60,000/- on above FD from the same bank  viz. PNB Bank and loan was repaid on 30.07.2020. However, bank asked the complainant to pay Rs. 30,808/- of interest  on the abovesaid loan otherwise they would not renew the FD of complainant and would withheld the whole interest of FD from 03.04.2020 until the complainant make the payment of loan interest amount Rs.30,808/-. The said amount was paid by the complainant. Consequently, the bank extorted Rs.30,808/- of interest for 4 months & 25 days. However the rate of interest on loan was 8.25% p.a. and the actual interest for abovesaid period Rs. 20,051./-. Hence, bank charged Rs. 10,757/- in excess, which is completely illegal, against law and complainant is entitled to recover the same.

                   It is averred that bank did not renew the FD on 03.04.2020 i.e. the date of maturity of the FD and renewed it on 30.07.2020 and provided the very small amount of interest i.e. 9,999/-. However the bank wrongly and illegally withheld the complainant’s amount and did not renew it till 30.07.2020. The actual rate of interest for FD amount of Rs. 9,15,881/- should be Rs.21,567/-. They kept interest amount of FD Rs.11,568/-.

                   The OP illegally extorted the amount of interest on loan for Rs. 10,757/- and kept the amount of FD interest Rs. 11,568/- illegally. Hence, total amount of Rs. 22,325/- is due against OP. The complainant visited the office of OP and gave an application to the Manager but neither the bank manager accepted his application nor taken any action to refund the amount to the complainant.  The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant seeks directions against the OP to pay the amount of Rs. 22,325/- along with interest, compensation and the litigation expenses besides any other relief for which the complainant is found entitled.

2.                 Opposite parties on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that on the request of complainant, OP advanced in his favour demand loan of Rs. 7,60,000/- @8.25% per annum on 05.03.2020 against the security of FD. Promissory note and letter for deposit of the said FDR duly discharged by the complainant in favour of OP and authorized the OP to appropriate  the amount of FDR for realization of the amount of loan advanced by the bank with interest etc. these documents were duly signed  by the complainant. The complainant wanted to receive back his FDR and thereby he deposited Rs. 7,90,808/- on 30.07.2020 towards loan.  It is alleged that FDR after advance of loan is not renewable. However after payment of the entire amount of demand loan, OP credited simple interest of Rs. 9999/- in the FD account of complainant because after discharge of the FD as security in the demand loan he is not entitled to interest at the rate of FDR originally agreed between the parties and only interest payable on saving bank accounts is payable on the amount of such FDR account and such amount of interest was paid by the OP. It is averred that interest on the demand loan amount was payable Rs. 20,051/-, OP charged Rs. 10,757/- as excess interest on the amount of demand loan. It is averred that  FDR was pledged as security duly discharged by him for repayment of the amount of demand loan account and the alleged FDR was not renewable after its pledge in the demand loan account as security. The interest after discharge of FD as security is payable at the rate as payable on the saving bank accounts and accordingly Rs.9,999/- were paid by the OP as interest amount.

                   During the proceedings, OP/bank official  referred internal circular No. 15/2020 dated 30.03.02020 and highlighted the claims which provides  as under:-

          “(d) In case of new advance, where auto renewal flag of FD account is ‘Y’ auto renewal flag of FD account be modified as ‘N’ and auto closure flag is to be modified as “Y” and obtain fresh mandate for renewal of  FD as well as loan account and follow the procedure described in point viii (b) above.”

                   OP also averred that  in terms of procedure for opening loan account, in deposit account Auto Renewal Flag is “N” and Auto Closure Flag is “Y” is to be ensured and system does not allow  Auto Renewal in such cases. He also mentioned that  SMS messages were sent to the complainant for renewal of FDR.

                   The OP averred that it is absolutely wrong that OP illegally recovered the amount of Rs. 10,757/- as interest amount on the demand loan and Rs. 11,568/- was illegally as interest payable.   Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-4 and closed the evidence on 29.06.2022.

4.             On the other hand, the Sh. Ravinder Kumar Gothwal, Senior Manager tendered into evidence affidavit as Ex. RW-1/A and documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-7 and closed the evidence on 08.06.2023.

5.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                It is admitted fact that the complainant had open FD account no. 057700PU00008420 with the OP bank i.e. PNB for Rs. 8,00,000/- firstly for 03.04.2018 to 03.04.2019 with maturity amount of Rs. 8,58,330/- out of the maturity amount an amount of Rs. 8,52,383/- was further continued  in the same FD account from 03.04.2019 to 03.04.2020 @7.25% with maturity amount of Rs.9,15,881/-. The said amount was not withdrawn by the complainant and continued invested in FD with the OP Bank. The said FD was pledged with the OP Bank against loan, he had availed from the bank (OP) in March 2020 and repaid in July 2020. The said amount of FD remained in FD account with OP (PNB) all the times. The said FD was due for renewal 04.04.2020. However, the bank renewed the FD w.e.f. 30.07.2020 for Rs.9,25,880/- from 30.07.2020 to 30.07.2021 after repayment of the loan amount.  The OP has averred that in the absence of mandate from the client, the FD could not be renewed automatically and system does not allow automatic renewal in case of loan against FD.  The contention of the OP that system does not allow to activate Auto Renewal in case of  loan against FD is not tenable and justifiable. The system, policy and procedure of the bank should be for benefit of the client not detrimental to their interest. The OP bank had given saving bank interest for Rs.9,999 on the FD amount for the period from 04.04.2020 to 29.07.2020 against FD rate of 7.25% p.a. However, the interest was reduced to 6% for renewal of FD for Rs.9,25,880 for the period from 30/07/2020 to 30/07/2021. As the amount had been invested in FD with OP all along, the OP is liable for payment of interest @6.00% p.a. The interest of FD for Rs.8,52,383 remained with OP for the period from 04/04/2020 to 29/07/2020 (117 days) interest  @6% p.a. works out to Rs.16,393. An amount of Rs.9,999 has already been paid and balance Rs.6,394 is payable by the OP to the complainant.  

7.       As regards excess interest charged on loan amount, we have observed that Bank official/OP has charged total Rs.30,808/- (i.e. Rs. 25,816/- towards interest  and Rs. 4,992/- towards penalty) over and above the loan amount of Rs.7,60,000   as evident  from Ex.R7. The OP, simply denying charging of additional interest has not given any justification for charging of penalty of Rs.4,992/- while  monthly amount of interest was being paid/debited to the account of complainant on due dates. Hence, there is no justification for charging penalty for Rs.4,992/-.  The same is required to be refunded to the complainant by the OP.

8.       In the present case, the complainant had availed loan for Rs.7,60,000 on 05/03/2020 against FD for Rs.8,52,383 with the OP and repaid the same on 30/07/2020 with interest and other charges. The loans was adequately secured by way of creating lien on the FD for amount more than the loan amount. Based on information placed on record the track record of the complainant in dealing with bank was satisfactory. He should not be penalized for his satisfactory track record by charging penalty that too without any justification and not providing interest applicable for FDs, on the deposit remained with the OP in the form of FD.

9.       In view of the above-mentioned facts and discussion and based on documents produced/placed on record by both the parties, this complaint is allowed and order is passed as under:

(i)      The OP to pay an amount of Rs.6,394 (Rupees six thousand three hundred       ninety-four only) to the complainant being differential interest amount on      the FD for Rs.8,52,383 @ 6% for 117 days from 04/04/2020 to 29/07/2020;

(ii)     The OP to refund an amount of Rs.4,992 (Rupees four thousand nine     hundred ninety-two to the complainant being penalty charged from the       complainant on loan amount.

(iii)    The OP to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs. five thousand only) for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

10.              The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which further interest @12% will be paid by the OP for the delayed period.

11.              Certified copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned after due compliance.