Kerala

Idukki

CC/163/2022

Abubakker K H - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBT of India - Opp.Party(s)

K M Sanu

29 Oct 2024

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 17.10.2022  

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the   29^th  day of  October,  2024

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.163/2022

Between

Complainant     :      Aboobakker K.H.,

Kainikkal House,

Muthalakkodam P.O.,

Madathikkandam, Thodupuzha.

          (By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties     :  1.  The Manager,

State Bank of India,

Karikkode Branch,

Thodupuzha East P.O., Thodupuzha.

       2.  The Regional Manager,

State Bank of India,

Regional Office, Thodupuzha East P.O.,

Thodupuzha, Mangattukavala.

       3. The State Bank of India,

Represented by the Branch Manager,

Karikkode Branch, Thodupuzha East P.O.

 (All by Adv: Babichen V. George)

O R D E R

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This case originates from a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019, (the Act, for short).  Case of the complainant is briefly discussed here under :

 

Complainant had availed an education loan of Rs.4 lakhs for his daughter Ashna in 2014 from Karikkode branch of SBI, the 1^st opposite party herein, represented by it’s manager. 2^nd opposite party is regional manager of SBI and 3^rd opposite party is the bank itself represented by branch manager of Karikkode branch. Since Ashna could not procure a descent employment, repayment was defaulted. Thereafter complainant had opted for one time settlement under the scheme ‘ഋണസമാധാൻ’ 19-20.  As per the scheme, a fixed amount towards the loan dues was to be paid in lump within 30 days.  Complainant had paid Rs.2,22,000/- which was the amount fixed in settlement on 20.9.2019.  Receipt was also issued by 1^st opposite party, for payment.  A ‘no dues’ certificate was also issued to complainant.  While so, complainant was in receipt of a notice dated 30.9.2022, issued by the Bank seeking payment of Rs.3,90,769/- towards the loan which was closed.  When complainant had gone to  bank and made enquiries, he was informed by 1^st opposite party that the amount is to be repaid within 10 days.  Complainant was further informed that bank had no knowledge regarding the settlement.  CIBIL score of complainant was also lowered due to this.  Complainant alleges that after having received the settlement amount towards dues and closure of loan transaction, issuance of a notice demanding further payment  is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Complainant prays for a direction to set aside the notice issued by opposite parties and also for restoration of his CIBIL rate.  He further seeks a compensation of Rs.1 lakh towards deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-.

 

2.  Opposite parties have entered appearance.  Opposite parties 1 and 3 have filed a joint version.  Their contentions are briefly discussed hereunder :

 

According to them, complainant and his daughter had availed OTS facility and settled the loan for a total amount of Rs.2,22,000/-.  They had received a discount of Rs.3,09,856/-.  When OTS was effected, demanded amount was written off from the system and books of account maintained by the Bank.  Due to an inadvertent error, a notice was sent to complainant mistakenly, demanding  payment towards the loan account.  This was a bonafide mistake.  When complainant had approached 1^st opposite party with the notice, bank had informed him that the loan was already closed and complainant does not have to pay anything towards loan account.  He was also informed that  issuance of notice was owing to an inadvertent error.  1^st opposite party had further assured the complainant that no further action will be taken by the Bank in this regard.  Complainant was convinced about this and had gone without any further queries or complaints.  Now he has filed this complaint upon instigation by 3^rd parties for making / extracting money by encashing upon the mistake committed from the side of bank.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.  Complainant has no cause of action.  Complaint is to be dismissed with costs.

 

3.  During the course of proceedings, a memo was filed by 3^rd opposite party that all claims with regard to the loan have been paid in full satisfaction. However, complainant had chosen to proceed with the matter.  From his side, no oral evidence was tendered.  However, 5 documents produced by him were marked as Exts.P1 to P5.  Ext.P1 is a copy of printed leaflet outlining the benefits of OTS opted by complainant. Ext.P2 is copy of an amount seen written in white paper mentioning that settlement was effected for Rs.2,22,000/- of total dues amounting to Rs.5,31,856/-,  that the amount was to be paid on 9.9.2019.  It also bears the seal of the Bank and signature of bank staff, probably.  Ext.P3 is a certificate, with regard to settlement of the loan, issued by the Bank dated 27.1.2020.  Ext.P4 is copy of counterfoil of pay in slip evidencing payment of Rs.2,22,000/- towards loan account.  Ext.P5 is the notice dated 30.9.2022 whereby a sum of Rs.3,90,769/- was demanded by the Bank towards the loan which was already closed in 2019.  

 

From the side of opposite parties, we notice that 1^st opposite party had filed an affidavit again reatriating that loan amount has been paid in full satisfaction and no further claims will be made or recovery will be attempted or steps  issued by 1^st opposite party.  After evidence was closed, learned counsel for complainant submitted that appropriate orders may be passed in this case. No arguments were addressed by him.Counsel for opposite parties would submit that memo and affidavit were filed in anticipation of an amicable settlement which he had fairly expected from the side of complainant.  That he never expected a submission from the side of complainant that appropriate orders can be passed in this case.  Able counsel submitted that even if the offer of settlement is ignored, evidence tendered from the side of complainant himself would disclose that the Bank had at the very first instance clarified that sending of notice was owing to an inadvertent error.  There is no evidence to prove that the manager of 1^st opposite party branch had insisted upon payment of the amount mentioned in Ext.P5 when the complainant approached him. A single instance that too, owing to an inadvertent error cannot be considered as an instance of deficiency in service, butonly a bonafide mistake which took place in the course of various businesses transacted by bank.  That being so, there is no cause of action for the complainant to rush to this Commission on the basis of Ext.P5 notice that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Attempt is to extract money from the Bank by whatever means possible, able counsel contends.  He further prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1)  Whether there was any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties ?

2)  Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for ?

3)  Final order and costs ?

 

4.  Point Nos.1 and 2 :

 

The entire case projected by complainant revolves around sending of Ext.P5 notice.  It is admitted that Ext.P5 notice was indeed sent from 1^st opposite party branch.  However, according to opposite parties, this was owing to an inadvertent error.  This fact was made clear to the complainant when he had approached the Bank with Ext.P5 notice.  Though the complainant claims in his complaint that amount was demanded by the branch manager, when Ext.P5 was shown to him, there is no evidence to prove this contention.  We notice that Exts.P2 and P3 were given to complainant by the Bank itself clearly indicating dues were cleared and loan account was closed by payment of settlement amount of Rs.2,22,000/-.  Ext.P2 further discloses that complainant had obtained a massive discount of Rs.3,09,856/- by opting for OTS.  Though the complainant contends that his CIBIL score was lowered, owing to outstanding dues claimed by Ext.P5, this does not appear to be correct.  He himself has admitted that repayment of loan was defaulted.  Thereafter he had opted for OTS and had settled the loan at concessional rates.  This by itself will  be sufficient for his CIBIL score rating to be lowered.  Moreover, there is nothing to show that his CIBIL rating has been lowered.  Complainant has not submitted his CIBIL rating prior to the closure and after the closure of loan account to prove that there was a fall in CIBIL score due to sending of P5.  

 

Reverting back to Ext.P5, it is mentioned in the notice itself that it can be ignored, if the amount has been already paid.  Thoughthis recital in the notice,  prima facie, shows laxity in sending of notice, in as much as that the sender himself is not sure whether, in fact, there are such dues or not, this by itself according to us does not amount to an instance of  deficiency in service.  Apart from this single notice, there was no follow up action like sending of further notices, issuance of recovery steps etc.  Opposite parties have contended that they had assured the complainant, when he had approached them with Ext.P5 notice that, it was mistakenly sent and no further action will be taken pursuant to the notice.  This appears to be convincing, in the light of subsequent circumstances, that is, filing of memo and affidavit before this Commission acknowledging the mistake.  In toto, evidence would only reveal that Ext.P5 was sent mistakenly.  Such mistakes are not uncommon in banking transactions.That apart, the instance had transpired nearly 3 years after the closure of loan when there was no bank-customer relationship subsisting between the parties.  On this count, it appears to us that the complaint cannot be maintained either.  However, as mentioned earlier, a singular instance of sending a notice mistakenly to claim an amount with regard to a loan transaction which has already been closed, cannot be treated as an instance of deficiency in service, when there is no evidence to prove that demand was followed by further actions for recovery.  Besides, 1^st opposite party has filed an affidavit swearing that account has already been closed and no recovery will be effected with regard to the said loan account.  There is nothing on record to show that the complainant had suffered any loss due to sending of such notice.  For these reasons, we find that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties.  Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for.  Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

 

5.  Point No.3 :

 

In the result, this complaint is dismissed, under the circumstances, without costs.  I.A. 01/2022 is dismissed.  Parties to take back extra copies filed, without delay.

 

    Pronounced by this Commission on this the   29^th  day of October, 2024

 

  Sd/-

       SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

  Sd/-

    SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1     - Copy of printed leaflet outlining the benefits of OTS opted by complainant.

Ext.P2    - Copy of an amount seen written in white paper mentioning that settlement

       was effected for Rs.2,22,000/- of total dues amounting to Rs.5,31,856/-,  

       that the amount was to be paid on 9.9.2019.     

Ext.P3   -  A certificate issued with regard to settlement of the loan issued by the bank

                 dated 27.1.2020.  

Ext.P4  -  Copy of counterfoil of pay in slip evidencing payment of Rs.2,22,000/-

       towards loan account.  

Ext.P5    -  Notice dated 30.9.2022 whereby a sum of Rs.3,90,769/- was demanded by

        the bank towards the loan which was already closed in 2019.  

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

     ASSISTANT REGISTRAR