KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI

This is an appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, preferred against the judgement dated 15/12/2022, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur, in CC/25/2020.

Brief facts of the Appellant’s case is that, the Respondent/Complainant being a State Government employee under the Land & Land Reforms Department with intention to construct a house, situated in Mouza – Dakra, on an area of 4 decimal in plot no. 1038 (old), 1353 (new) under Balurghat PS, in the district of Dakshin Dinajpur, had applied for loan, from the Appellant/Bank and after considering his documents, sanctioned loan, amounting to Rs.3,96,880/- (Rupees three lakhs ninety six thousand eight hundred eighty) only,  under the United Bank Housing Loan Scheme. The Appellant/Bank had disbursed a loan amount of Rs.3,87,000/- (Rupees three lakhs eighty-seven thousand) only, after deducting Rs.9,698.28 (Rupees nine thousand six hundred ninety-eight point two eight) only, towards insurance. As per the agreement, the Respondent/Complainant was required to repay @ Rs.5029/- per month, which was to be deducted from his salary by the DDO and remit the amount to the Loan Account being no. 0236300026150, for 10 years. After repaying the loan amount and liquidation of the loan, the Respondent/Complainant met with the Appellant/Bank officials, on 22/06/2018 and 17/07/2018, with a request for his Title documents, kept with the Appellant/Bank. Though there was no outstanding balance, the Appellant/Bank created pressure upon the Respondent/Complainant, to pay a sum of Rs.66,000/-  (Rupees sixty-six thousand) only, claiming as outstanding amount and non-payment of which would result in bad remarks, in the CIBIL. The Respondent/Complainant, thereafter sent a Legal Notice dated 03/09/2019, with a prayer for issuance of Clearance Certificate and to return the Title documents. Despite making several correspondences in this regard, the Appellant/Bank had failed to respond, thereby committing deficiency in service. The Respondent/Complainant had also paid an amount of Rs.308/- (Rupees three hundred) only on 17/04/2018, whereas the Appellant/Bank, had claimed that the Respondent/Complainant did not pay the one time premium for insurance and had also not paid the instalment for August 2012, Jan. 2013 and Feb. 2013. Finding no alternative, the Respondent/Complainant filed the instant case, before the Ld. DCDRF, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur, with necessary prayers.

The Appellant/Bank appeared to contest the claim, by filing written version, wherein the sanction of loan was admitted and it was stated that the Respondent/Complainant started by depositing Rs.4,969/- (Rupees four thousand nine hundred sixty-nine) only, instead of Rs.5,029/- (Rupees five thousand twenty-nine) only, as instalment from 21/05/2009. It was further stated that the payment of lesser amount of instalment, the A/c had become NPA from 30/09/2013. It was further stated that the instalments of August 2012, Jan. 2013 and Feb. 2013 were not deposited. Moreover, the amount of Rs.1,916/- (Rupees one thousand nine hundred sixteen) only, as insurance premium on 18/02/2009 and Rs.9,880/- (Rupees nine thousand eight hundred eighty) only,  which had been debited from the Respondent/Complainant’s Loan Account, had not been repaid by the Respondent/Complainant. Thus, the amount of Rs.66000/- had accrued, to be repaid by the Respondent/Complainant since 30/06/2018. It was further prayed that the case be dismissed.

After going through the materials and evidence on record, the Ld. DCDRF, Balurghat, passed the impugned order directing the issuance of loan Clearance Certificate and release of the Title deed and other documents and also directed the Appellant/Bank, to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, as litigation cost, within 45 days from the date of the impugned order.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant/Bank, preferred the instant appeal, on the ground that the Ld. DCDRF, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur, had erred in law and facts, while passing the impugned order.

Decisions with Reasons

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/Bank, at the time of final hearing, argued that the Respondent/Complainant, in spite of receiving the loan on 02/02/2009, had started repaying on 21/05/2009, after a gap of three months by depositing Rs.4,969/- (Rupees four thousand nine hundred sixty nine) only, instead of Rs.5,029/- (Rupees five thousand twenty nine) only, as agreed earlier. Such non-payment of the instalments had resulted in the Loan Account being NPA. The Respondent/Complainant had repaid the instalment, as per his own choice and therefore the Appellant/Bank had calculated the default interest on such erratic payment, resulting in the amount of Rs.66000/- (Rupees sixty-six thousand) only, being demanded, as a result the impugned order was erroneous.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant, on the other hand had countered, by stating that the Appellant/Bank had failed to substantiate their illegal and arbitrary demand, by failing to file any cogent documents in their support. That apart, the failure of the Appellant/Bank to reply to the Notice resulted in the case being filed.

After hearing both the sides and going through the documents, it becomes clear that the agreement between the parties, was to repay the loan at a monthly instalment of Rs.5,029/- (Rupees five thousand twenty-nine) only, within ten years, but from the Statement filed before this Commission it transpires that the repayment started from 21/05/2009 @ Rs.4969/-, even though the loan had been sanctioned on 10/02/2009. Thereafter, the loans were paid @ Rs.4969/- on 10/06/2009, 22/07/2009, 04/09/2009, 24/09/2009, 21/10/2009, 23/11/2009, 22/12/2009 and thereafter the amount of instalment became Rs.5004/- on 02/02/2010 and again it become Rs.4999/- on 18/02/2010 and again Rs.5004/- on 17/03/2010, Rs.5006/- on 26/04/2010, Rs.5031/- on 24/05/2010, Rs.4976/- on 24/06/2010, Rs.5006/- on 27/07/2010, Rs.4949/- on 31/08/2010, Rs.5004/- on 21/09/2010, Rs.4941/- on 21/05/2010, Rs.4979/- on 16/11/2010, Rs.5004/- on 28/12/2010, Rs.5004/- on 19/01/2011, 25/02/2011, 15/03/2011, Rs.5001/- on 13/05/2011, Rs.4994/- on 30/05/2011, Rs.5001/- on 17/06/2011, 30/07/2011, Rs.5029/- on 22/08/2011, Rs.5001/- on 15/10/2011, Rs.5029/- on 18/11/2011, 18/11/2011, 16/12/2011, 09/01/2012, 16/02/2012, Rs.5001/- on 13/03/2012, Rs.5023/- on 21/04/2012, Rs.4938/- on 29/05/2012, Rs.4931/- on 12/06/2012, Rs.4971/- on 24/07/2012, Rs.5029/- on 25/09/2012, 19/10/2012, 09/11/2012, Rs.5002/- on 28/12/2012, Rs.5029/- on 05/03/2013, 05/03/2013, 30/04/2013, 07/05/2013, 18/06/2013, 03/07/2013.

The Ld. Forum below while deciding the matter had categorically observed that the instalments for Aug. 2012, Jan. 2013 & Feb. 2013 had been repaid on 06/08/2012 by counterfoil deposit slip and SDL&LRO, Gangarampur Cheques no. 059629 and 060268, respectively. In the same manner, it had been observed that the insurance premium amount of Rs.9880/- and Rs.1916/- had also been deposited. However, the impugned judgement has remained silent with regard to the initial instalments deposited @ Rs.4969/- till about the month of May 2011-2012. There is also no observation regarding the erratic manner of depositing the instalments. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming from the Respondent/Complainant, as to why the instalments were not paid as per the agreed instalment of Rs.5029/-, nor is there any explanation with regard to the manner in which the instalments were deposited. The Respondent/Complainant was fully aware about the rate of instalment as Rs.5029/- per month and he was also fully aware about the instalments being deducted from his salary, for the period reflected above. Under such circumstance, the accrual of interest for the non-payment of the proper instalments and on proper time has to be borne by the Respondent/Complainant, as the Respondent/Complainant is not a layman, as he is an employee of the State Government. Moreover, bank money is also public money and therefore the accrual of interest has to be met by the Respondent/Complainant. However, the Appellant/Bank is directed to revise the accrual of interest in view of the observations made about with regard to the non-payment of instalments for the months of Aug. 2012, Jan. & Feb. 2013 along with the insurance premium amount of Rs.9880/- and Rs.1916/-. As a result, the instant appeal succeeds in part.

It is therefore,

ORDERED

That the instant appeal be and the same is allowed in part on contest, but without cost.

The impugned order is hereby set aside, subject to the condition that the Appellant/Bank file a fresh revised claim of interest, as per the observations made in the body of judgement and subject to realization from the Respondent/Complainant, after which the Title Deeds be returned to the Respondent/Complainant, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties, free of cost.

Copy to the Ld. DCDRF, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur, for necessary information.

Statutory deposits, if any, be returned from whom received.

Jt. Registrar, Siliguri Circuit Bench of WBSCDRC, Kolkata,

 to do the needful.