Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he is the holder of SB A/C No. 10150688250 (Salary Account) in the S.B.I., Dum Dum Branch which is being operated normally without any interruption since its inception. On and from 10.09.2003 a Loan for amounting of Rs. 50,000/- and on and from 03.07.2006 another loan amounting Rs. 1,00,000/- have been paid by this complainant to the op as per the agreement and both the cases the ops served the documents properly to the complainant and the complainant paid her dues with her full satisfaction only except this 3rd loan amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- dated 08.10.2009.
In fact complainant prayed for 3rd Loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- as per advice of the op no.2 on payment of the previous two loans by the complainant and accordingly complainant applied for 3rd loan to the op and op sanctioned 3rd loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- dated 08.10.2009. But in respect of 3rd Loan, op did not supply the loan documents even after repeated verbal requests made by the complainant. But being a gentle lady and school teacher complainant never tried to stop EMI but only repeatedly verbally requested to serve the documents as before and to explain the causes for not supplying the said documents. But op did not respond and handover or supply the said documents and ultimately complainant submitted a complaint to the office of op no.1 on 26.05.2011, but even then no response was received from the part of the op.
Complainant thereafter on 11.09.2013 sent an Advocate’s letter with a demand for the documents as before and to explain the causes for such illegal/extra demands in this case but yet no reply was made on the part of the op. Thereafter on 22.11.2013 another Advocate’s letter was also sent with some demands. But at that time an unofficial with no seal and signature of the ops and partly blank sheet as agreement letter has beenserved by the op no.1. But after considering that agreement, it is found that at the time of disbursing the 3rd loan, op no.1 claimed the EMI of Rs. 6,000/- per month for 48 months in total but started deducting each EMI as Rs. 6,615/- per month for 48 months and after such request and writings the unofficial copy with no seal and signatures of the ops and partly blank sheet called as arrangement letter also has been served mentioning EMI of Rs. 6,615/- per month for 48 months and probably to deduct such extra of Rs. 615/- per month was the cause for not serving any document for this 3rd loanwhich is no doubt illegal act of the ops. But complainant has no copy to show her EMI as Rs. 6,000/-.
Further it is submitted that even after service of Advocate’s letter sent with a demand for the documents as before on 20.12.2013 and ops sent similar type of documents with no seal and signatures of the ops’ and arrangement letter with no seal and signatures and a computer generated 6 pages statements with no seal and signature of the ops but showing the deductions of 49 EMIs of Rs. 6,615/- in lieu of 48 EMIs as per documents. It is to be mentioned that in the statement interest rate has been shown as 15.50 percent p.a but in some documents it is blank and in some documents it is shown as 12.25 percent p.a. but reason for discrepancy is not explained by the ops.
After considering all those documents as supplied by the op, complainant was practically perplexed and some sort of conspiracy was done by the op which is found and impliedly op as per their own wish managed to deduct EMIs outside the agreement clause etc. But anyhow ops even after repeated demand did not serve the actual documents signed by both the parties and executed by both the parties and such sort of practice on the part of the op is no doubt negligent and deficient manner of service and at the same time unfair trade practice on the part of the op.
When complainant failed to get any redressal from the op, complainant requested the ops not to deduct further amount from the said S/B A/C No. 10150688250 (Salary Account) for the Loan A/C being No.30916980292 in the S.B.I. at Dum Dum Branch until full satisfaction but failed.
Another factor is that ops have failed to produce any legal, valid, authentic Loan A/C and complainant requested the ops to send legally valid explanation of accounts containing terms and conditions and also such statements of accounts and in the above circumstances for not getting proper justice, redressal and other relief, complainant filed this complaint for illegal and arbitrary act on the part of the op and for negligent and deficient manner of service and in the circumstances, the complainant has prayed for directing the op to supply legal and authentic documents including loan agreement along with terms and conditions for sanctioning the same bank loans and for other purposes also and prayed for not deducting any amount from the Salary Account etc.
On the other hand op nos. 1 & 2 of S.B.I. by filing written statement submitted that no doubt complainant is a customer in respect of her loan account being No. 30916980292 and complainant took loan under X-press Credit Scheme a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- by signing loan agreement and in the arrangement letter which is part of the agreement clearly states that the interest of the loan is Floating Rate of interest not fixed rate of interest and during loan period the rate of interest was changed but complainant paid EMI of Rs. 6,615/- which was calculated at the inception of the loan account, when the interest was 12.25 percent yearly. But at that time banking authority has no knowledge of the future rate of interest. But during loan period the rate of interest was changed and that has been ventilated in the written statement and it is further submitted that as per accountstatement now a days a sum of Rs. 7,612/- is due and as per terms of agreement the complainant is liable to pay in respect of her legal dues.
With reference to the statement made in page-18 save and except which are matter on record op denied and disputed all other statement and complainant shall have to prove her case strictly and complainant was well aware about the rate of interest in detailed as mentioned and fact remains previous loan was sanctioned at fixed rate of interest but the present loan was sanctioned at Floating rate of interest and the EMI of Rs. 6,615/- was calculated initially when rate of interest was 12.25 percent p.a. But thereafter the rate of interestwas changed and EMI was also changed but the complainant made payment 48 installment at the rateRs. 6,615/- for that reason some outstanding loan amount was due. After receiving letter on behalf of the complainant, bank already served photocopy of Arrangement letter, Personal loan agreement, and statements of account and so the entire complaint is vexatious and same should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
On comparative study of the complaint and written version and also considering the materials on record and particularly the copy of the Arrangement letter along with Agreement signed by Smt. Panna Das (Bhattacharjee), W/o Sanjay Kumar Das, aged about 50 years and also the statement of account, it is found that same are the vital documents on the basis of which the entire consumer dispute can be decided in view of the fact when op relied upon those documents as part of the written version of the ops which are marked as Annexure- A, B & C.
On proper evaluation of the argument as advanced by both the parties and particularly hearing the Branch Manager who was present on the last date of hearing, we have gathered that the Branch Manager of the op tried to convince that practically as per agreement, it was a Floating rate of interest in respect of loan account No. 10150688250 as per agreement as and when rate of interest would be changed that would be calculated and for which some amount was due. So, the complainant must have to pay as per agreement and anyway the complainant must not have to go outside the said agreement.
No doubt we are relying upon the argument of op’s Ld. Lawyer,when there is an agreement along with Arrangement letter issued by the bank. But the main contention of the complainant is that in those Arrangement letter and the Agreement copy were never served upon the complainant, even after sanction of loan and complainant specifically has averred that at the time of signing in the said papers it was all blank and the Banking authority reported that total EMI shall be Rs. 6,000/- per month for 6 to 8 monthsbut bank deducted EMI at the rateRs. 6,615/- and in this regard bank’s defence is that as because the interest rate was floating and as and when the interest was changed after calculation the said amount as EMI was deducted so there was no illegality.
Op also submitted that in fact there is due payment of Rs. 7,612/- which has not been paid by the complainant. Now we shall have to consider the documents that is Arrangement Letter and Loan Agreement executed by the complainant. Fact remains in the Arrangement letter, it is specifically mentioned that loan to the extent of Rs. 2,50,000/- was sanctioned with terms and conditions and it is specifically printed that interest of the loan will be charged at the rate0.50 percent p.a. over PLR which is currently 11.75 percent p.a. and current bank rate being 12.45 percent p.a. was monthly EMI and it is specifically mentioned in the said Arrangement letter as and when the interest rate would be changed it shall be notified to the lonee member. But the Branch Manager who was present on the date of final argument admitted against query made by this Forum that if any change of rate of interest is made in that case it is the duty of the bank to inform the lonee member whether he is willing to accept it and if lonee member does not accept it in that case the loan amount shall be closed on previous rate of interest and in that case lonee member must have to clear the entire loan account and loan account shall be closed but that has not been done by the Branch Manager which has been admitted by Branch Manager himself before this Forum.
But from the said copy, it is found that in respect of repayment of loan, 48 months is noted and equated monthly installment is noted of Rs. 6,615/-. But anyhow banking authority deducted Rs. 6,615/- as monthly EMI in equated 49 installments that means interest of Rs. 6,615/- was deducted by the banking authority beyond the terms of the agreement and Arrangement Letter. But under any circumstances banking authority has not been able to prove that acceptance and consent of the complainant was received on the basis of the offer letter made by the op and thereafter as per consent Floating rate of interest was deducted and it is admitted by the Branch Manager in open Forum that consent or acceptance letter was not taken by the op bank which is administrative fault on the part of the bank.
This is one part of negligence on the part of the op bank and no doubt it is an act of callous administration of the op bank and that is admitted by the Branch Manager in open Forum. Now another cat has come out from the safety locker of the op bank and that is nothing but the loan agreement and copy of the loan agreement in Xerox form has been filed as Annexure-B as part of the written version. But most interesting factor is that the entire agreement columns are vacant and only signature of Smt. Panna Das (Bhattacharjee) is found.
Most interesting factor is that in the said agreement, there is no seal, signature of the Branch Manager regarding acceptance of the agreement of loan so in the eye of law in the agreement of loan bank is not a party. But that agreement of loan was taken from the complainant by the op only collecting her signature. But it was kept in the safe custody of the op. Then it is clear that it is not an agreement as it is not signed by both the parties. Thought it is noted that agreement was made on 09.10.2009 in between Smt. Panna Das (Bhattacharjee) and the Bank/op. But all columns are vacant. But anyhow subsequently in the 5th clause EMI is noted Rs. 6,615/- and months 48 but that is also not supplied by the bank authority. Then it is clear that worthless administration of this bank is in habit to collect signature in the agreement form without filling up all columns and as because it is the printed document only in the first page that is stamp paper is supplied by the lonee member and that is tagged and it is kept with bank and from that document it is clear that in the present case somehow the banking authority has to file up the same after receipt of the complaint but it was supplied before the Forum after repeated request of the complainant for which the misdeed of the op/Bank in the agreement paper is still found when the Branch Manager in the open Forum was kept mum but truth is that it is the practice of the banking authority anyhow to collect the papers only by putting signatures of the lonee member and thereafter all misdeeds are being done by them to squeeze more interest and some other notes are made back behind the knowledge of the lonee member like the complainant.
So, this document is so vital that this document of the bank clearly reveals that complainant was not aware of the interest rate, not aware of the actual payment etc. not about interest. But then ops claim it as a valid agreement. Complainant was in deep darkness about the entire interest rate etc. which is proved and Branch Manager personally admitted that they never sent any letter to the complainant informing the fact of subsequent increase of interest rate as per RBI rules and it is admitted that they never tried to collect any consent or acceptance letter from the complainant about payment of subsequent increase rate of interest.
But it is mandatory that if interest is increased in respect of any existing loan account in that case it must be reported to the customer (present complainant) or any other cases to the lonee member whether the said loan accepts it or not. If no consent is given by the lonee member in that case the alternative action should be taken by the op/bank for informing the complainant that his/her loan account is closed and she must have to pay the entire amount till that date with old interest. But that has not also been done by the op bank and that has been admitted by the Branch Manager in open Forum.
So, the unfair trade practice as practiced by the op is proved beyond any manner of doubt and truth is that in this case the cat has been caught by this Forum. So, the Branch Manager tune became MEW MEW. But the clever cat (Banks) in so many cases applied such practice being the Nationalised or Private Bank and truth is that customers are being cheated by the bank in such a manner. But fact remains agreement must be very specific and it must be known to the lonee member so that knowing fully well the terms and conditions of the same, the lonee member shall be careful whether he/she shall have to sign or not. But in poor country like India, Banking authorities are not by the side of the lonee members of middle class people or the rural people. They are only on the side of the capitalists, the lonee member because they got some extra aid. But poor class and middle class people do not give any extra aid for which poorer section of people in India or middle class people of India (lonee members) are being cheated and deceived by the banking authorities whether private or nationalized. From many corner and the consumer organization there is a cry that consumers are being deceived by the banking administration whether private or nationalized and that is truth which is evident from this particular case.
So considering all the above materials and documents we are convinced to hold that complainant has been able to prove all sorts of negligence and deficiency and illegal and arbitrary act of the op bank and also the fact of practicing unfair trade practice by the ops beyond any manner of doubt.
Truth is that op already admitted that they have deducted 49 EMIs. But their plea is that extra one EMI was deducted for enhancement rate of interest and even after that deduction, another amount of Rs. 7,612/- is liable to be paid by the complainant as claimed by the ops. But we have gathered from the documents and also relying upon the above discussion and materials, we are convinced that there is no dues from the complainant in respect of that loan account being No. 30916980292.
Truth is that even 48 EMIs at the rateRs. 6,615/- had been deducted. Extra another EMI has been deducted. But that 49th deduction is illegal and uncalled for. Fact remains interest rate was 12.25 percent p.a. and there was no scope on the part of the op to charge any other extra interest as claimed in view of the fact no acceptance letter or consent letter was taken by the op prior to imposing such extra interest. Because mere printing of floating rate of interest does not give any right to the op bank to deduct it automatically. But it must be notified before giving effect to the complainant and that has not been done which is admitted by the Branch Manager.
In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that in fact the entire amount has been deducted by the op from the account of the complainant so there is no outstanding balance but outstanding dues to the extent of Rs. 7,612/- as claimed is illegal when 49thEMI had already been deducted at the rateRs. 6,615/- and in the above circumstances we are convinced that the entire administrative act on the part of the op is unconstitutional, uncalled for and arbitrary in nature and no doubt deceitful manner in nature and in the present case the malpractice as adopted by the op is well proved only to deceive the lonee member in such a manner for which the complainant is entitled to get a relief as claimed.
In the light of the above fact and materials, we are inclined to hold that complainant has proved all sorts of negligence arbitrary act of the op including unfair trade practice adopted by the op for which the complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the ops with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
Opis debarred from debiting any amount from complainant’s SB A/C No. 10150688250 (Salary Account) and the Loan A/C No. 30916980292 in the SBI at Dum Dum Branch in the name of complainant is treated as finally closed and op no.2 to handover NOC to that effect to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order.
For harassing the complainant and for adopting arbitrary and negligent manner of service and for causing mental pain and agony and harassment, the present lady aged about 53 years by the op, op is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order.
For adopting unfair trade practice by the ops in the present case and to prevent such sort of unfair practice in future and to prevent them to exploit the customers at large and for protection of the consumers a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is imposed against the ops as penal damages and same shall be deposited to this Forum’s account within 15 days from the date of this order.
If ops fail to comply that order in that case for disobeyance and noncompliance of the Forum’s order penal interest at the rateRs. 200/- per day shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the decree and even penal action u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be started against them for which they shall be further imposed penalty and fine and all sorts of penalty amount shall be paid to this Forum’s account.
