Judgment : Dt.22.6.2017
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member
This petition of complaint is filed under Section 12 of C.P.Act by Mr. Biplab Bose alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties – (1) State Bank of India, Alipore Court Treasury Branch, (2) The General Manager & Network Nodal Officer, Kolkata.
Case of the Complainant, in brief, is that the Complainant has availed a personal loan of Rs.2,50,000/- disbursed by the Opposite Parties on 31.12.2014 under terms of repayment of the same by 60 equated monthly installments @ Rs.6,014/- each to be debited directly from the salary to be credited into the account being No.SB-31923188755 vide a standing instruction (SI) of deduction of such EMI amount on and from 31.01.2017. It is further stated by the Complainant that one SMS over phone stating non-receipt of EMI was received by the Complainant on 28.01.2015 and receiving the same he communicated the same to Branch Manager of the OP Bank who advised him to ignore the said SMS. The Complainant has further stated that on 7.11.2015 and 30.11.2015 SMS stating irregularity of loan account by INR 11340 and further on 15.12.2015 another SMS stating a debit transaction towards the arrear loan amount of Rs.17,927/- are remaining as outstanding. It is specifically stated by the Complainant that the SMSs stating irregularity of the loan account being kept on receiving and again a debit intimation of late payment charges of Rs.573/- only plus penal interest @ 2%. The Complainant further stated that he personally met the Branch Manager, Mr. Gobind Kr. Pariyal and sought a copy of loan agreement including the standing instruction report but to no effect. However, the Complainant sought information under the R.T.I. Act on 8.3.2016. The Complainant, thereafter, took the matter into the notice of the G.M.(NW-1) of SBI, Ombudsman on 29.05.2016 via e-mail and received reply on 30.05.2016 to the effect that the same was forwarded to G.M.(NW-II). The Complainant has stated that to liquidate the loan which was remaining as on 11.7.2016 as Rs.2,09,227/-.
It is the specific allegation as made by the Complainant that due to the inaction on the part of the OP Bank, the Complainant compelled to sustain a pecuniary loss of Rs.6,102.37 which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
Accordingly, the Complainant has prayed for direction upon the Opposite Parties to pay deducted value i.e. Rs.6,102.37 of the charges levied along with 18% (Rs.1,098.42) interest, to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for physical strain and mental agony, to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation.
The Opposite Party appeared and contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing all material allegations as made out in the petition of complaint stating inter alia that the loan was granted on 31.12.2014 and the EMI @ Rs.6,014/- payable on and from 31.1.2015 and thereafter on 31st of every subsequent month and the standing instruction had not been complied after payment of 18th EMI because the fund was too low to debit the amount fixed for EMI. It is also stated by the Opposite Party had the EMIs been paid on scheduled dates the Complainant would not have to pay the penalty as well as no question of sustaining the pecuniary loss of Rs.6,112.37 would have been arisen. Accordingly, the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the case. The Complainant adduced affidavit-in-chief.
Points for determination
Is the case is maintainable?
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
Is the Complainant entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1 – The Complainant availed Banking service provided by the OP Bank and thus became ‘Consumer’ under the Opposite Party as per provision of Sec.2(1)(d) of C.P.Act. The value of this complaint is within pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum and the cause of action has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Thus the case is maintainable.
Point Nos.2 & 3 – Admittedly a personal loan was sanctioned and disbursed by the OP in favour of the Complainant which was repayable by 60 EMIs @ Rs.6,014/- each was payable on 31st day of each month on and from 31.01.2016. The Complainant stated that he received SMSs on different dates regarding non-payment of EMI. The Complainant also stated that there was standing instruction to debit the amount of EMI directly from his salary account being No.SB 31923188755. The Complainant, in support of his contention furnished Photostat copies of SMS, received by him and copies of Passbook showing statement of account including other documents. It appears from the said documents that the OP Bank frequently reminded him of making payment of outstanding amounts for repayment of the said loan. The Complainant alleged that he intimated the Branch Manager of the OP Bank and sought advice as well as the documents in respect of payment of EMIs but he advised him to ignore the message and did not hand over the required documents. However, no documentary evidence has been brought forward before us so that such contention might have been sustained. It is also evident from the copies of pass book that during the pertinent time when the Bank sent SMSs regarding payment of outstanding amount, the Complainant had sufficient fund in his Bank account, but, there is no record for debiting the EMI amount on the same account. From the aforesaid document, it is difficult to arrive at a decision that whether any standing instruction was given towards debiting the EMI amount from the said account. It is observed that had the Complainant been vigilant enough regarding payment of EMI, he could have been updated his pass book of the said Account so that he might know that whether the EMI amount had been debited or not.
In such view of the matter, we find no deficiency on the part of the Bank for debiting the extra amount towards payment of the loan as the schedules had not been paid in time. Moreover, the Complainant did not allege deviation from the agreed terms of loan on the part of the OP Bank.
All points are answered accordingly.
In the result, the petition of complaint does not succeed.
Hence,
ordered
That CC/517/2016 is dismissed on contest.
