Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 03-07-2015 of the Ld. District Forum, Darjeeling in C.C. no. 05/2014 whereof the complaint has been allowed.

Brief facts of the complaint case are that, Complainant availed of a House Building Loan amounting to Rs. 7,40,000/- from the OP against which he was supposed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,500/- every month.  Although he duly paid EMIs, he was surprised to find that, as per the bank statement dated 15-05-2005, his outstanding due towards the said loan account shot up to Rs. 8,49,637/-.  When the matter was taken up with the OP, it credited an amount of Rs. 1,29,472/- to his loan account.  The OP did not provide any bank statement for the financial year 2006-2007 in spite of repeated requests.  The OP abruptly debited an amount of Rs. 14,327/- against his loan account, but refused to give any explanation for such action.  Thereafter, when legal notice was issued on 18-11-2013, it replied to the said notice stating that the same was on account of less interest charged during the previous periods.  Further allegation of the Complainant is that the maturity value of a LIC policy which was kept with the OP as security, was converted into a FD on 31-03-2013.  Although the maturity value of FD was Rs. 2,26,431/-, at the time of renewal of the same, it was renewed for a sum of Rs. 2,22,310/-. When he enquired about the matter, out of the said differential amount, he was paid Rs. 2,839/- in cash and was also handed over an outdated TDS certificate for a sum of Rs. 1,272/-.  Aggrieved with such arbitrary acts of the OP, the complaint was filed.

Per contra case of the OP is that, in the year 2005, Computerized Banking System (CBS) was not introduced and all banking works were being done manually.  So, some human error might have occurred at the time of calculation of balance amount, but the same was rectified in time.  When accounts are checked by the internal auditor, in case of any discrepancy the same is rectified.  It is claimed by the OP that on the request of the Complainant, account statement for the financial year 2006-2007 was issued to him.  On 16-03-2009, a sum of Rs. 14,127/- was debited from the HBL account of the Complainant on account of less interest charged in the system as per the advice of the internal auditor.  It is further contended that an amount of Rs. 2,839/- was rightly paid to the Complainant after adjustment of Rs. 1,272/- as TDS amount.  OP denied that the Complainant suffered any mental pain and/or agony. 

Decision with reasons

Ld. Advocates for the parties are heard at length and gone through the material on record thoroughly.

The instant complaint was primarily filed over alleged over-charging of interest in respect of the loan account of the Respondent.  Notwithstanding the Appellant articulated strong confidence about the correctness of its Statement of Account, following factors make a hollow of its claim.

First, we find that initially the Appellant showed an outstanding amount of Rs. 8,49,637/- in respect of the subject loan account.  However, when the Respondent took up the matter strongly with it, the Appellant credited a sum of Rs. 1,29,472/- to the said loan account. Had there been no mistake on the part of the Appellant, certainly it would not adjust the said money.

Secondly, admittedly its internal Auditor detected fault with the interest calculation done by the officials of the Appellant.  Subsequently, the Appellant realized a sum of Rs. 14,127/- from the Respondent without providing any break-up of the same. As a customer/payee, the Respondent had every right to have access to the intricate detail of such calculations in order to satisfy himself about the correctness of the same. However, the Appellant did not bother to disclose any detail in this regard.

Thirdly, the Appellant charged penal interest to the Respondent even for those months when EMI was paid by the Respondent. The Appellant has not offered any explanation for the reasons best known to it.

Above all, it appears that the Ld. District Forum, after noticing gross anomaly with the Statement of Account submitted by the Appellant, took unto itself the onerous task of preparing an error-free Statement of Account.  Significantly, the Appellant could not pick a single hole with the said Statement of Account.

It is a sad sight indeed that a bank of national repute is incapable of calculating interest properly and most importantly, such error did not happen once, but the Appellant went on committing mistakes one after the other.  

The Appellant, as it seems, has cut a sorry figure to nullify other allegations of the Respondent too.

It is not understood, why the Appellant not added the sum of Rs. 2,839/- with the FD amount, thereby causing financial loss to the Respondent. It may not be out of the place to mention here that the Appellant, on its own, did not return the cash to him.  It returned the money to the Respondent only when the latter visited the bank to enquire about the anomaly occurred in respect of the FD account.

It also appears that the Appellant did not issue TDS Certificate to the Respondent in time for which, the latter could not stake refund claim with the Income Tax Authority. The Appellant cannot shrug off due liability for the same.

It is argued by the Appellant that the Ld. District Forum erroneously held that there was no such condition for imposition of penal interest in respect of the subject loan account.  While the subject loan agreement could be a sheet anchor to clear the air in the matter, for some obscure reasons, the Appellant refrained from furnishing copy of the concerned loan agreement executed in between the parties before us. Therefore, the veracity of Appellant’s allegation could not be verified independently.

All these, without any iota of doubt, only points out gross deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant.  Accordingly, it is needless to say that the Ld. District Forum rightly allowed the complaint.

The Appeal, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed against the Respondents with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-, being payable by the Appellant to the Respondents.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.