| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM CACHAR :: SILCHAR Con. Case No. 7 of 2013 Smti. Minara Begum Mazumder ………………………………………… Complainant. -Vrs.- 1. State Bank of India, (Represented by its Zonal Manager, Having Office at Dispur, Guwahati-781006. O.P No.1. 2. The Regional Manager, SBI Ukhilpatty7, Silchar-788001. O.P No.2. 3. The Branch Manager, SBI Industrial Estate Badarpur, P.O- Badarpur Dist.-Karimganj, Assam Pin- 788806. O.P No.3. Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Appeared :- Abdul Gofur Barbhuiya, Advocate for the complainant. Sri Shantanu Nandan Bhattacharjee, Advocate for the O.P. No.3 None for O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 Date of Evidence……………………….. 17-05-2013, 02-07-2013 Date of written argument……………… 05-04-2017, 16-05-2017 Date of judgment………………………. 11-07-2017 JUDGMENT AND ORDER Sri Bishnu Dednath - Smti. Minara Begum Mazumder (referred as complainant) brought the complaint against State Bank of India Badarpur Branch and 2 (Two) others for award to direct the O.P to return the excess amount of interest on loan repayment realized after deduction of 84th EMI from the complainant’s SB A/C No. 01190019892 in connection with car loan A/C No. 10549490847 and compensation of Rs.25,000 for disservice and other reliefs.
- The complainant to get the reliefs stated in the complaint, brought the following facts:- On 28/09/2005 the complainant took Car loan of Rs.1,90,000 from SBI, Badarpur Branch. Accordingly, the O.P-Bank issued Draft/Cheque No. 55063 for Rs.2,18,943 in favour of Jain Udyog, Silchar. Before issuing the above Draft/ Cheque the Bank Transferred down payment of RS. 28,943 from the SB A/C of the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant purchased a Maruti 800 Car. As per agreement between the Bank and the complainant, the EMI was fixed Rs.2,965 and repayable with 84 installments. The rate of interest was 8.50% per annum.
- The Bank regularly deducted EMI from his SB A/C No. 01190019892. Thus, as per agreement, in the month of September 2012, loan account should be closed but from the Bank Statement dated 06/11/2012 reflected that balance remained Rs.11,485.11. Hence, the complainant enquired the matter and detected that the O.P-Bank did not deduct the EMI in regular interval for the ill-intention to increase interest and also calculated higher rate of interest on balance loan amount time to time. Accordingly, pleader’s notice issued but the lawyer of the O.P-Bank denied the allegation of disservice etc. on behalf of the O.P.
- However, on receiving notice of this Consumer Forum, the O.P No.1, 2 and 3 submitted joint W/S. In their W/S they stated inter alia that the complainant was granted loan for Car at the floating rate of interest and 84 Nos. of EMI was fixed for Rs.2,965 each. They have stated that when rate of interest was not fixed rather floating, it is not possible to determine the exact balance amount would be remaining at the end of 84th installment forwhich after deduction of 84th installment the balance amount of Rs. 11,485.11/- was deducted from the SB account of the Complainant.
- During hearing the complainant adduce evidence and exhibited 8 (Eight) documents including statement of loan accounts. The O.P side also examined Sri Arup Kumar Dey, the Manager (PBD) and exhibited agreement letter, statement of account, the application for Car loan etc.
- Both side counsels submitted written argument. We have perused the evidence on record and written agreement including exhibited document. We have also heard oral argument of the Advocate of the Complainant.
- From the evidence on record, it is revealed that after clearing the 84th installment of Car loan the balance remain unrealized of Rs.11,485.11/-. The complainant tried to establish the plea that the balance was raised due to calculation of excess rate of interest and non-deduction of installment in the month of December 2016 and February 2007 but the O.P took plea that the agreed rate of interest was floating for which after 84th installment balance remains Rs.11,485.11. Of course, the O.P did not explain the cause and reasoning for non-deduction of installment in the month of December 2006 and February 2007.
- To convince this Forum regarding agreement of floating rate of interest, they exhibited agreement letter in original vide Ext. A. In that document signature of the complainant is Ext. A (1). The said document revealed that the complainant agreement to change interest at floating rate. The said document also revealed that EMI was Rs.2,965 and loan is to be repaid fully with interest. The Ext.6 the statement of loan Account clearly reflected that no installment deducted from the SB A/C of the Complainant in the month of December, 2006 and February, 2007. But at the same time the Complainant did not adduce any evidence convincingly to establish the fact as how much amount of interest charged by the O.P due to non-deduction of installment in the month of December, 2006 and February, 2007. Of course, the O.P replied that for irregular deduction of installment no extra interest charged and actually the loan was repayable till it was liquidated and as the floating rate of interest was applied the loan was not strictly repayable only in 84 equated monthly installment (EMI) of Rs.2965. Different interest rates were applied at different phases of the loan and it was not possible to calculated out forehand as to what the actual number of EMI would be for repayment loan. It is also replied that 84 installment were fixed as plausible number of EMI with a condition that the Bank should have the option to reduce or increase the EMI or extend the repayment period consequent upon changes in the SBAR. So, the Complainant was bound to pay the residue of any remain after completion of 84 installments. Accordingly, further deduction were made even after payment of 84 installments and finally after deduction of Rs.2965 on 16/05/2013 the debit balance was reduced to zero and loan account was closed for ever. The O.P also by adducing evidence both oral and documentary tried to establish those fact.
- Ext. B is the statement of loan account. The said document exhibited by the O.P. The Ext.6 and Ext. B are same document. Thus, we have gone through that statement of loan account. As per that admitted document the O.P Bank did not deduct monthly installment regularly for many occasions. Sometime deducted 3 (three) installment at a time and some occasion 2(two) installment at a time with interval of 3 (three) month and 2 (two) month respectively. When the O.P did not deduct installment for a month or two month or three month togetherly, the balance loan repayment increased due to changing interest, whereas the statement of SB A/C vide Ext. F reflected the balance in the SB A/C was sufficient at the relevant month for deduction of installment.
- From above, factual aspect of evidence on record convinced us to opine that the O.P. without any justification remained idle to deduct installment to reduce to loan burden of the Complainant. So, above inaction of the O.P caused hardship to Complainant to bear extra burden for payment of excess interest on loan.
- Hence, we are further convinced with the submission of the Ld. Advocate of the complainant and concluded that above inaction of the O.P. for irregular deduction of installment from SB account of the Complainant for repayment of loan is deficiency of service. Hence, the O.P. No.3 and its higher authorities i.e O.P. No. 1 and 2 are liable both severally and jointly to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand) only and cost of proceeding of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand) only to the Complainant within 45 days from today. In default, interest at the rate of 10% per annum to be added to the awarded amount above till realization of the full.
- With the above, this case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of the Judgment to the parties.
Given under the hand of the President and Members of this District Forum and seal of the Office of the District Forum on this the 11th day of July, 2017. | |
