| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/15/258 of 3.11.2015 Decided on: 15.3.2016 Hans Raj S/o Magi Ram R/o House No.45, Guru Nanak Nagar, Bahadurgarh, Tehsil and District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus State Bank of India through its Branch Manager, The Mall Branch, Patiala. …………….Op Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh. A.P.S.Rajput, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.Pardeep Kumar, Advocate For Op : Ex-parte ORDER NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER - Complainant Hans Raj S/o Magi Ram R/o House No.45, Guru Nanak Nagar, Bahadurgarh, Tehsil and District Patiala has filed this complaint against the opposite party ( hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(for short the Act). The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
- It is the case of the complainant that he is the permanent employee of Fedreal Moghul Gotze Ltd. Bahadurgarh ,Patiala and had applied for the housing loan from the bank of the Op, which was sanctioned in a sum of Rs.5lacs in the year 2006. It was agreed between the parties that the loan amount will be returned within 15 years by paying the installment of Rs.5145/- per month , which was got debited by the Op from the salary account of the complainant from the month of November,2006 to August,2015 regularly.
- It is further the case of the complainant that in the month of August,2015 an official of the Op visited the house of the complainant in his absence and handed over a letter dated 4.8.2015 to his wife regarding the payment of Rs.38,935/- failing which the Op will sell the house of the complainant, which was never earlier disclosed to the complainant .
- It is further the case of the complainant that the Op without his consent withdrew an amount of Rs.16,500/- and Rs.7271/- from his salary account , even though he was not a defaulter of any amount as he has been paying the EMIs regularly. It is further averred that the complainant again received another letter dated 10.8.2015 from the Op demanding an amount of Rs.22,808/- from the complainant stating that the EMI of Rs.5145/- is not correct and the correct EMI is of Rs.7271/-. No explanation in this regard was given to the complainant.
- It is further the case of the complainant that he also wrote an application to the OP for the certified copy of the account statement as well as loan agreement,which was received by the Branch Manager but to no effect. It is further the case of the complainant that lastly on receiving another letter dated 11.9.2015 from the Op which was entirely different from the earlier letters dated 4.8.2015 and 10.2.2015, the complainant went to the office of the OP to inquire the matter but the OP failed to provide any documents/information. The complainant also got served the Op with a legal notice dated 1.10.2015. Thus the act and conduct of the Op is amounted to an deficiency of service. It is thus prayed for a direction to the Op not to deduct Rs.7271/- as EMI from the salary account of the complainant; to refund Rs.20,152/- with interest @ 9.45% per annum , Rs.60,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs of the litigation.
- Notice of the complaint was given to the Op who despite service failed to come present and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.
- In the exparte evidence the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C23 and his counsel closed the evidence.
- The complainant failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the evidence on record.
- The complainant availed a loan of Rs.5lacs from the OP in the year 2006, which was to be repaid in 15 years as agreed between the parties by paying installments of Rs.5145/- per month and the same was got debited by the OP from the salary account of the complainant. The complainant has been paying the EMIs regularly since November,2006 to August,2015.
- The Op withdrew an amount of Rs.16500/- and Rs.7271/- from the account of the complainant without his consent even though the complainant was paying the EMIs regularly. The complainant received a letter dated 10.8.2015 i.e. Ex.C5, written by the Op, demanding an amount of Rs.22,808/- from the complainant stating that the EMI of Rs.5145/- was not correct and the correct EMI was of Rs.7271/- without giving any explanation for the same. Thereafter, the complainant wrote an application i.e. Ex.C6, to the OP demanding the certified copy of the account statement as well as of the loan agreement but the OP failed to supply the same. Copy of the loan agreement is very much necessary to determine as per clause the OP has withdrawn the amount of Rs.16500/- from the account of the complainant without his consent and also to show under which terms and conditions the OP has enhanced the EMI amount from Rs.5145/- to Rs.7271/- arbitrarily .
- On 1.10.2015, the complainant also got served the OP with a legal notice but the OP failed to give the reply. Moreover, failure on the part of the OP to contest the claim of the complainant amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to the OP to refund an amount of Rs.16500/- to the complainant with interest @6% per annum from the date of withdrawal till payment. OP is also directed not to enhance the amount of EMI from Rs.5145/- to Rs.7271/-.Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that it would be reasonable to award the complainant with a compensation in a sum of Rs.10,000/- which is inclusive of the cost of litigation. Order be complied by the OP within a period of 45 days on the receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Sonia Bansal Neelam Gupta A.P.S.Rajput Member Member President | |
