Tripura

StateCommission

A/3/2017

The Branch Manager State Bank of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Debanjana Dev Barman - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Prabir Saha, Mr. Biswanath Majumder, Mr. Diptanu Debnath

05 Jun 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.3.2017

 

 

1. Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

ONGC Colony Branch,

P.O. ONGC, Agartala,

District - West Tripura.

 

2. RASMECC & SARC,

Represented by its Chief Manager,

State Bank of India,

4 Mantribari Road,

P.S. West Agartala,

District - West Tripura.

 

3. Sri Santanu Kumar Kar,

Recovery Agent,

RASMECC & SARC,

4 Mantribari Road,

Agartala, West Tripura.

… … … … … … Appellant/Opposite parties.

 

•  

 

1. Smt. Debanjana Dev Barman,

W/o Sri Rajib Datta,

Resident of Dhaleswar,

Near Water Supply Road,

Kalyani, Agartala,

District - West Tripura.

… … … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

For the Appellants:                                              Ms. Prabir Saha, Adv.

For the Respondent:                                            Mr. Utpal Das, Adv.  

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:            05.06.2017.

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha,J,

The instant appeal is filed by the three appellants, namely, the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, ONGC Colony Branch, RASMECC & SARC, represented by its Chief Manager, State Bank of India and Sri Santanu Kumar Kar, Recovery Agent of RASMECC & SARC respectively, against the judgment dated 22.11.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. C.C. 52 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent-complainant as the appellants are found vicariously liable for the action of recovery agent and thereafter to recover the amount from the respondent and return the original key to the respondent-complainant immediately.  

4. Heard Mr. Prabir Saha, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants, Branch Manager, State Bank of India and two others (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/SBI/Bank) as well as Mr. Utpal Das, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant). 
5. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The complainant Smt. Debanjana Dev Barman had purchased one personal car on higher purchase agreement from ONGC Colony Branch of SBI on 11.02.2013. Appellant, the Branch Manager, ONGC Colony Branch of SBI (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.1) agreed to finance Rs.2,40,000/- which is to be paid in 72 installments with monthly installments of Rs.4,501/-. While paying installments by the respondent-complainant, the husband of the complainant met serious fire accident for which she had to spend Rs.25 lacs for treatment purpose. Therefore, she could not pay monthly installments in time. As she faced serious problem, she talked with the opposite party financier and paid some amount. But suddenly on 04.06.2016, one Sri Santanu Kar, (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.3) along with other recovery agent forcefully entered into her house and harassed her as well as her husband and took away one original key of the car out of two keys. The recovery agent demanded Rs.4,500/- as their 'REPO' charges. Thereafter, the complainant deposited Rs.14,000/- with the Bank. Out of 72 instalments, 40 instalments has already been paid by the complainant, but the original key was not delivered. Hence, the complainant filed complaint petition under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum for compensation amounting to Rs.4 lacs for harassment, Rs.5 lacs for house trespass and damage to the car and social status dignity and Rs.15,000/- for cost of proceeding.

6. Appellant-opposite party nos.2 & 3, i.e. RASMECC & SARC and Sri Santanu Kar filed their written statement denying the claim of the complainant. It is stated that recovery agent i.e. the opposite party no.3 did not demand any amount. Borrower failed to pay the amount as per terms and conditions. Opposite parties, therefore, prayed for giving direction to the complainant to pay Rs.1,46,117/- + interest.
7. Opposite party no.1, Branch Manager, SBI, ONGC Colony Branch did not appear to contest the case.
8. On the basis of the contention raised by the parties, the Ld. District Forum framed the following points for deciding the complaint case.

1. Whether the complainant was harassed without any cause and suffered due to deficiency of service by O.P.?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the compensation as claimed?

9. Complainant produced the documents relating to purchase of car, bank statement, discharge certificate of her husband from the hospital, RBI's guideline, bank statement, copy of letter. She also examined two witnesses i.e. the complainant herself and her husband by way of filing statement on affidavit.
10. Appellant-opposite parties, on the other hand, produced the copy of loan agreement, copy of letter and also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness i.e. the Chief Manager, RASMECC & SARC, the opposite party no.2.
11. The Ld. District Forum in its findings specifically stated that admittedly, the complainant had taken loan of Rs.2,40,000/- for purchasing a GM Chevrolet Spark vehicle by creating mortgage from the SBI, ONGC Colony Branch. As per terms and conditions, the Bank, its agent and nominee is entitled to enter into the place of hypothecated vehicle in default of payment and is authorized to take possession of the vehicle, which was mortgaged with the Bank. It is also found that the appellant-opposite party had given notice to the complainant when she failed to repay the instalments and thus, the loan account of the complainant turned into NPA with effect from 08.11.2015. After declaring the loan account as NPA, the respondent-complainant deposited Rs.16,000/- with the Bank which was also accepted by the appellant-Bank. From the statement of account, it is revealed that sometime Rs.5,000/- and sometimes Rs.4,600/- was being paid regularly from 2013, 2014 and 2015 and thereafter balance was shown Rs.1,63,532/- after calculation of interest. The complainant also admitted that when she was defaulter, she wrote a letter to the Branch Manager of State Bank of India on 30.06.2016 requesting him to allow three months’ time to repay the loan amount after calculating the EMI. The Ld. District Forum also took note of the facts from the medical documents submitted by the respondent-complainant that her husband suffered burnt injury and she was in a helpless condition for which she could not pay the installments in time. In spite of her application, the opposite party sent recovery agent who as per evidence physically assaulted the complainant using filthy languages and snatched away the original key of the car, threatening her to give a good lesson.

The Ld. District Forum in its findings also stated that the Consumer Court is not supposed to take any decision on the criminal activities of the recovery agent, but the respondent-complainant is at liberty to file criminal case, which is to be investigated by proper authority to find out the truth. Consumer Forum is only to deal with the matter of compensation, if any deficiency of service is there. After considering the evidence on record, the Ld. District Forum held that the recovery agent had over-acted on the basis of the direction of the opposite party-State Bank of India and caused harassment to the respondent-complainant and finally directed the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as stated (supra).

12. Mr. Saha, Ld. Counsel submits that admittedly, the respondent-complainant did not deposit the EMI consecutively for more than three times and she was accordingly informed by the Bank Authority that her loan account is declared as NPA and not only that, even before sending the recovery agent, notice was issued upon her, which she received. He further submits that there is no independent witness examined by the respondent-complainant that the recovery agent assaulted her and also misbehaved with them. He has finally contended that no criminal case was filed against the recovery agent before filing the complaint case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.
13.  On the other hand, Mr. Das, Ld. Counsel who appeared along with the respondent-complainant submits that the respondent-complainant is ready to pay the dues up-to-date for which the respondent-complainant filed one application to the Branch Manager, SBI, ONGC Colony Branch on 01.06.2017 during the pendency of the appeal in terms of the order of this Commission dated 08.05.2017. He has also submitted that the respondent-complainant on the same date also deposited Rs.6,000/- with the opposite party no.1-SBI, ONGC Colony Branch in her loan account. He has also contended that the opposite party no.1, Branch Manager of SBI, ONGC Colony Branch told the respondent-complainant that she may deposit the money in her loan account so that the NPA can be opened.  
14. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence of complainant from which it appears that though it was stated that the Recovery Agent, Sri Santanu Kumar Kar and Sri Ashok Kumar Roy, the AGM of the opposite party no.2 misbehaved with them, but in what manner and how they misbehaved with them that was not stated. It is also admitted position that before sending the recovery agent, the complainant was properly noticed, which the complainant received and after taking away of the key of the vehicle, when the complainant met with the Assistant General Manager of RASMECC & SARC, State Bank of India i.e. the opposite party no.2 and assured to repay the irregular dues within 15 days, the AGM of the opposite party no.2 also assured her to return the said key of the vehicle as soon as the dues are repaid, but fact remains that she could not repay the dues.
15. In view of the above, we are unable to accept the findings of the District Forum that the recovery agent had assaulted the complainant and misbehaved with them for which the Ld. District Forum awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- directing the opposite parties to pay as compensation to the complainant. There is also no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party-Bank. Therefore, according to us, it would be proper to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Ld. District Forum. Accordingly, the same is set aside.

However, the complainant admittedly paid some amount even after declaration of her loan account as NPA. She also paid some amount during pendency of the appeal and filed an application to the Branch Manager SBI, ONGC Colony Branch to give her some time for payment of dues, which was received by the appellant-opposite party no.1, Branch Manager, ONGC Colony Branch on 01.06.2017, but the said application has not been disposed of, according to the complainant. The Bank Authority may dispose of the same with some humane touch keeping in mind that the respondent-complainant had spent huge amount for the treatment of her husband for which she could not pay the instalment of the Bank in time. We hope and trust that the Bank Authority will give some time to the complainant for clearing her dues as stated by the complainant amounting to Rs.74,000/- by way of instalments within 4 (four) months. Till the completion of four months, the Bank Authority shall not take any action for recovery of the vehicle. If the complainant wants to go for one time settlement, then the Bank Authority may allow her the same. It is made clear that if the aforesaid amount of Rs.74,000/-, the dues as stated by the complainant is not paid within the stipulated period as mentioned above, then the Bank Authority is at liberty to take any action in accordance with law.       

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura MEMBER State Commission Tripura PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura