1.                     This is a petition filed by one Dr. Sushil  Das (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner)   against  the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Hojai Branch (hereinafter referred to as the opposite  party) U/S 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying for recovery of money, compensation and other reliefs.

2.                 Fact and circumstances for filing of the aforesaid petition as narrated by the petitioner are as    follows:-

                        The complainant-Dr. Sushil Das, borrowed a housing loan amounting to Rs.20,80,000.00 from the Opposite Party, namely, the State Bank of India (Hojai Branch)  for construction of a house Vide loan No. 32033570952 dated 14/11/2011 and the rate of interest was fixed at 10.50% (at floating rate of interest) with 18 months moratorium period and the said loan amount was disbursed by the opposite party in five (5) installments during the period from 16/11/2011 to 29/08/2012. Further contention of the petitioner is that the said housing loan was also insured with an insurance coverage loan vide A/c No.32033603356 (SBI Suraksha Insurance) of sum assured Rs.1,06,800.00 and after completion of the moratorium period (Holiday period) of 18 months i.e. on 20/05/2013, the EMI of the said housing loan was fixed as Rs.22,300.00 per month for a period of 204 months and with a repayment period of 186 months and the EMI of insurance coverage loan was fixed Rs.1,145.00 per month. The complainant further stated in his petition that the EMI of the said loans had been directly debited from his Savings Bank account by the opposite party since 20th May, 2013 and he has paid a total 30 installments till 20th October, 2015 as per the terms & conditions of the loan agreement and the remaining outstanding amount would be paid till the liquidation of the said loan. Further submission for the complainant is that the EMI of the said loan was fixed as Rs.22,300.00 by the opposite party which was also mentioned in the computerized short enquiry dated 23/05/2013 and he had no overdue / pending installments to be paid to the opposite party since 20th May, 2013 as his payment was up to date but dispute arose when the opposite party debited Rs.58,796.00 on 07/11/2015 and another amount of Rs.16,065.00 on 27/11/2013 from his savings Bank account without his  consent which was not actually due to the opposite party as per contract/arrangement letter. He again submitted that on the 7^th November, 2015, the opposite party deducted an amount of Rs.58,796.00 from his savings Bank account  without formal prior information, intimation and consent of this complainant and the amount so deducted was no longer an overdue to the opposite party, as the stipulated EMI payment was up to date and the complainant had totally paid 30 EMI up to October, 2015 and when he had   enquired about the sudden deduction, the opposite party verbally stated that the said deducted amount of Rs.58,796.00 was an overdue of difference of EMI of Rs.22,300.00 instead of EMI Rs.22,689.00 & adjusted accordingly. He again stated in his complaint petition that  the version of the opposite party was that the present rectified EMI would be Rs.25,066.00 or Rs. 25,734.00 with a balance repayment period of 156 months dated 07/11/2015 but it was a matter of surprise that the computerized short enquiry of the said loan issued by the opposite party dated 20/11/2015 showed that the EMI for the said loan was Rs.28,065.00 and  this complainant personally calculated the difference of 30 months of EMI and compared it but it did not tally with the amount of Rs.58,796.00 which was deducted by the opposite party rather the short enquiry issued by the opposite party dated 20/11/2015 showed advance payment of Rs.22,876.00 with EMI Rs.28,065.00, so, the complainant apprehended that there were huge anomalies deliberately done by the opposite party itself for its vested interest and made the complainant a victim and the act of hasty deduction without the consent of the customer is a deficiency of the banking service and violation of the codes of Bank's commitments to the customer issued by Banking codes & standards Board of India.

                    The complainant further stated that he claimed  the opposite party to refund the deducted amount of Rs.58,796.00 with interest @22% per annum as the same was deducted without his consent & violating the terms & conditions of the loan as stated in the loan agreement and it  was his apprehension that the accumulated amount including principal & interest, if any, generated out of the wrongful fixation of EMI in present and in future till the liquidation of the said loan, which is also a kind of financial loss to him and thus, he suffered mentally due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this claim petition is before this Commission praying for the relief.

3.              The opposite party filed written version and contested the claim petition of the petitioner. The opposite party denied all the allegations made by the complainant in his complain petition and states that the opposite party has rightly deducted the aforesaid over-due amount. By the written version, the opposite party admitted the fact that the complainant availed a housing loan of Rs.20,80,000.00 and a SBI Suraksha loan of Rs.1,06,800.00 for insurance coverage of the Complainant's life,  the said housing loan was disbursed by the opposite in 5 (five) installments during the period from 16/11/2011 to 29/08/2012. The opposite party averred that at the time of sanctioning the loan, EMI of housing loan was fixed at Rs.22,300.00  per month with a period of 204 months and with a repayment period of 186 months as the moratorium period was granted for 18 months and EMI of SBI Suraksha loan was fixed at Rs.1,145.00 per month at the at the time of sanctioning the loan. Further submission of the opposite party is that the Complainant started repayment of the said housing loan from 20/05/2013 at the rate of 22,300.00 per month but as per Serial No. 11 of Annexure- I, the Complainant was supposed to repay the accumulated interest during the moratorium period and after completion of moratorium period, he ought to have request the Bank for resetting of his Pre-EMI interest for capitalization. The opposite party alleged that since the Complainant has failed to comply with this as per the terms and conditions of Annexure-I and intentionally repaying low EMI despite knowing the fact that Pre-EMI interest was not included as shown in EMI (inst Due column) i. e. Rs.22,300.00 in Annexure - 11 which should have been Rs.24,822.00 approx. if Pre-EMI interest was capitalized. Further version of the opposite party is that the EMI of SBI Suraksha loan was fixed at Rs.1,145.00 per month to be repaid in 186 installments, similarly in this loan account also Pre-EMI interest was not capitalized and the Complainant was repaying at the rate of Rs.1,145.00 per month despite knowing the fact that the EMI which he was repaying was a low EMI as the Pre-EMI interest was not capitalized. The opposite party also stated in the written version that the Complainant has executed a loan agreement (Annexure-E) on 14/11/2011 in favour of State Bank of India, Hojai Branch and as per the said agreement, the opposite party deducted Rs.58,796.00 on last 07/11/2015 and Rs.16065.00 on last 27/11/2013 as these amount accumulated as arrear, due to less payment of EMI and the Complainant have the full knowledge that the EMI which he was paying was exclusive of pre – EMI interest accumulation. The opposite party further averred that on last 07/11/2015 an amount of Rs.58,796.00 was rightly deducted by the opposite party from the Savings Bank Account of the Complainant and credited to his loan account and the said amount has been deducted by the opposite party by the rights given by the Complainant through the loan agreement (Annexure-E) executed on 14/11/2011 by the Complainant in favour of the opposite party and as the EMI was being paid less every month, installment due was shown more in the system. It was further submitted for the opposite party that on last 27/11/2013 an amount of Rs.16,065.00 was rightly deducted by the O.P. from the Savings Bank Account of the Complainant and credited to the loan account of the Complainant and the opposite party has deducted the said amount by the rights given by the Complainant through the loan agreement (Annexure-E) executed on 14/11/2011 by the Complainant in favour of the opposite party. The opposite party further averred in the written version that the Bank has communicated the Complainant on several times for rescheduling of EMI of both loan accounts to resolve the issue but the Complainant has not responding rather he has been trying to blame the opposite party. and trying for illegal gain by filing this complaint case but the Complainant is bound to comply the terms and conditions incorporated in Annexure-1 and loan agreement (Annexure-E) dated 14/11/2011 executed by the Complainant in favour of the opposite party and so, there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party and question of violation of rights of the customer and violation of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement dated 14/11/2011 by the opposite party does not arise at all. The opposite party further submitted that the complainant for his own fault has suffered so called mental agony and in the instant case,  the Bank officials did not commit any deficiency of service while  deducting the accumulated interest of the home loan of the complainant from his savings Bank Account and thus, prays for dismissal of the claim petition.

4.                     On basis of pleadings of both the contesting parties the following points have come out for discussion and decision:-

1. Whether the complainant suffered mental and financial loss for the act of the opposite party while deducting an amount of Rs.58,796.00 on 07/11/2015 and another amount of Rs.16,065.00 on 27/11/2013 from the savings Bank account of the complainant without his  consent  and whether the said amounts were was not actually due to the opposite party for his housing loan and SBI Suraksha Loan and whether such act on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service ?

                   2.   Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

5.                  The complainant filed evidence in affidavit of himself and also exhibited several documents in support of his claim. The opposite party also examined one witness in support of their written version. Both the witnesses were duly cross-examined by their opponents.

6.                   Written argument filed by both the contested parties and perused the same.

7.                       Decision and reasons thereof:-

8.                     For the sake of brevity both the Points No. (i)  and (ii) are taken jointly for discussion and decision.:-

                          The claim of the claimant is that the opposite party illegally deducted Rs.58,796.00 on 07/11/2015 and another amount of Rs.16,065.00 on 27/11/2013 from his savings Bank account in connection with the Housing loan availed by him from the opposite party  without prior information to him and without his consent and the said amount were not actually due to the opposite party. In support of his claim, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1. In his evidence, he deposed to the effect that he availed a housing loan amounting to Rs.20,80,000.00 from the Opposite Party, namely, the State Bank of India(Hojai Branch) for construction of a house Vide loan No. 32033570952 dated 14/11/2011 and the rate of interest was fixed at 10.50% (a floating rate of interest) with 18 months moratorium period. His further evidence is that the said loan amount was disbursed by the opposite party in five (5) installments during the period from 16/11/2011 to 29/08/2012 and the said housing loan was also insured with an insurance coverage loan vide A/c No.32033603356 (SBI Suraksha Insurance) of sum assured Rs.1,06,800.00. Further evidence of the P.W.1 is that after completion of the moratorium period (Holiday period) of 18 months i.e. on 20/05/2013, the EMI of the said housing loan was fixed at  Rs.22,300.00 per month for a period of 204 months and with a repayment period of 186 months and the EMI of insurance coverage loan was fixed at Rs.1,145.00 per month. This P.W. again deposed that the EMI of the said loans had been directly debited from his Savings Bank account by the opposite party since 20th May, 2013 and thus, he has paid a total 30 installments till 20th October, 2015 as per the terms & conditions of the loan agreement and the remaining outstanding amount would be paid till the liquidation of the said loan. He also stated in his evidence that the EMI of the said loan was fixed at Rs.22,300.00 by the opposite party which was also mentioned in the computerized short enquiry dated 23/05/2013 and he had no overdue/ pending installments to be paid to the opposite party since 20th May, 2013 as his repayment was up to date but dispute arose when the opposite party illegally debited Rs.58,796.00 on 07/11/2015 and another amount of Rs.16,065.00 on 27/11/2013 from his savings Bank account without his  consent and those amount were not actually due to the opposite party as per contract/arrangement letter. He further deposed in his evidence that on the 7^th November, 2015, the opposite party deducted an amount of Rs.58,796.00 from his savings Bank account  without formal prior information and intimation to him and without his consent and .the amount so deducted was no longer an overdue to the opposite party, as the stipulated EMI payment was up to date and this P.W. had paid a total 30 EMI up to October, 2015 and when he had   enquired about the sudden deduction, the opposite party verbally stated that the said deducted amount of Rs.58,796.00 was an overdue of difference of EMI of Rs.22,300.00 instead of EMI Rs.22,689.00 and adjusted accordingly. He again deposed in his evidence that  the version of the opposite party was that the present rectified EMI would be Rs.25,066.00 or Rs. 25,734.00 with a balance repayment period of 156 months dated 07/11/2015 but it was a matter of surprise that the computerized short enquiry of the said loan issued by the opposite party dated 20/11/2015 showed that the EMI for the said loan was Rs.28,065.00 and  this complainant personally calculated the difference of 30 months of EMI and compared it but it did not tally with the amount Rs.58,796.00 which was deducted by the opposite party rather the short enquiry issued by the opposite party dated 20/11/2015 showed advance payment of Rs.22,876.00 with EMI Rs.28,065.00. The petitioner as P.W.1 also deposed that due to the aforesaid act of opposite party, he apprehended that there were huge anomalies deliberately done by the opposite party for his vested interest and made the complainant a victim thereof and the act of hasty deduction without the consent of the customer is a deficiency of the banking services and violation of the codes of Bank's commitments to the customer issued by Banking codes & standards Board of India. P.W.1 further deposed in his evidence in affidavit that he claimed  the opposite party to refund the deducted amount of Rs.58,796.00 with interest @22% per annum as the same was deducted without his consent & violating the terms & conditions of the loan as stated in the loan agreement and it  was his apprehension that the accumulated amount including principal & interest, if any, generated out of the wrongful fixation of EMI in present and in future till the liquidation of the said loan, which is also a kind of financial loss to him and thus, he suffered mentally due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

             The opposite parties by filing written statement submitted that  the Bank rightly deducted Rs.58,796.00 on last 07/11/2015 and Rs.16065.00 on last 27/11/2013 from the Savings Bank Account of the complainant in connection with the home loan availed by him from the opposite party and credited to his loan Account as these amount were accumulated as arrear, due to less payment of EMI by the Complainant having full knowledge that the EMI which was paying by him was exclusive of pre – EMI interest accumulation. In support of the written version, the opposite party examined one Sadananda Neog, Deputy Branch Manager of S.B.I., Hojai Branch as D.W.1. In his evidence in affidavit this D.W. deposed  to the effect that the complainant availed a housing loan of Rs.20,80,000.00 and a SBI Suraksha loan of Rs.1,06,800.00 for insurance coverage of his life,  the said housing loan was disbursed by the opposite in 5 (five) installments during the period from 16/11/2011 to 29/08/2012. The D.W.1 further deposed that at the time of sanctioning the loan, EMI of housing loan was fixed at Rs.22,300.00  per month with a period of 204 months and with a repayment period of 186 months as the moratorium period was granted for 18 months and EMI of SBI Suraksha loan was fixed at Rs.1,145.00 per month at the time of sanctioning the loan. Further evidence of the D.W.1 is that the Complainant started repayment of the said housing loan from 20/05/2013 @ Rs.22,300.00 per month but as per Serial No. 11 of Annexure- I, the Complainant was supposed to repay the accumulated interest during the moratorium period and after completion of moratorium period, he ought to have request for resetting of his Pre-EMI interest for capitalization. D.W.1 further deposed that since the Complainant has failed to comply with this as per the terms and conditions of Annexure-I and intentionally repaying low EMI despite knowing the fact that Pre-EMI interest was not included as shown in EMI (inst Due column) i.e. Rs.22,300.00 in Annexure-11 which should have been Rs.24,822.00 approx., if Pre-EMI interest was capitalized. Further evidence of D.W.1 is that the EMI of SBI Suraksha loan was fixed at Rs.1,145.00 per month to be repaid in 186 installments, similarly, in this loan account also Pre-EMI interest was not capitalized and the Complainant was repaying @Rs.1,145.00 per month despite knowing the fact that the EMI which he was repaying was a low EMI as the Pre-EMI interest was not capitalized. The D.W.1 also stated in his evidence in affidavit that the opposite party has rightly deducted Rs.58,796.00 on 07/11/2015 and Rs.16065.00 on  27/11/2013 as these amount were accumulated as arrear, due to less payment of EMI by the complainant having the full knowledge that the EMI which were paying by him was exclusive of pre – EMI interest accumulation and those amount were rightly deducted by the opposite party from the Savings Bank Account of the complainant and credited to his loan account by the rights given by him through the loan agreement (Annexure-E) executed on 14/11/2011 by the Complainant in favour of the opposite party. The D.W.1 further deposed that the Bank officials have duly communicated the Complainant on several times for rescheduling of EMI of both the loan accounts to resolve the issue but the Complainant has not responding rather he has been trying for illegal gain by filing this complaint case but he is bound to comply the terms and conditions incorporated in Annexure-1 and as such, there was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

                       Thus, from above evidence adduced by the parties and the materials in record, it reveals that the facts of availing a housing loan along with a SBI Suraksha Loan by the petitioner from the opposite party,  the said housing loan was disbursed by the opposite party in 5 (five) installments during the period from 16/11/2011 to 29/08/2012, the rate of interest was fixed at 10.50% with 18 months moratorium period are not disputed. The complainant alleged that the E.M.I. for his housing loan was fixed by the opposite party @ Rs.22,300/- per month and though he has been regularly paid his monthly installment without fail and though there was no overdue/pending installment to be paid to the opposite party, yet the opposite party debited Rs.58,000/- on 07/11/2015 and another amount of Rs.16,065/- on 27/11/2015 from his savings Bank account without his consent. The opposite parties pleaded and adduce evidence that that the Bank had rightly deducted Rs.58,796.00 on last 07/11/2015 and Rs.16065.00 on last 27/11/2013 from the Savings Bank Account of the complainant in connection with the home loan and the SBI Suraksha Loan availed by him and credited to his loan Account as these amount were accumulated as arrear, due to less payment of EMI by the complainant and the EMI which was paying by him did not include the pre – EMI interest. From the contention and evidence of both parties, it is clear that last installment of the housing loan was disbursed on last 29/08/2012, a moratorium period of 18 months was granted to the petitioner and the complainant started repayment of his loan from 20/05/2013 @ Rs.22,300/- per month. The opposite party asserted that as per serial No.11 of Loan Arrangement latter (Annexure-I), the complainant was supposed to repay the accumulated interest during the moratorium period and after completion of the moratorium period, he ought to have requested the Bank for resetting his Pre-EMI interest and the amount of Rs.22,300/- per month did not include Pre-EMI interest but after capitalization of pre-EMI interest, the rate of monthly installment would have been Rs.24,822/- instead of Rs.22,300/- per month. The opposite party also claimed that the EMI of S.B.I. Suraksha loan account also not capitalized and the complainant was repaying @ Rs.1,145/- per month which was a low EMI and the amount of Rs.58,796.00 deducted on last 07/11/2015 and Rs.16065.00 deducted on last 27/11/2013 from the Savings Bank Account of the complainant were accumulated as arrear and credited to his loan account. From Annexure-I, it is seen that para-11 provides for Pre-EMI interest which stipulated that “after competition of moratorium period , the petitioner have an option to request the Bank to reset EMI based on the actual outstanding in the loan account after final disbursement, subject to submission of revised check of authority or tendering post dated cheques towards the EMI so arrived that”. In para 11 of Annexure –I it was also stipulated an option requesting the borrower to tender post dated cheques drawn at monthly intervals for servicing amount of pre-EMI interest during the moratorium period. The petitioner as P.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that that he read the contents of Annexure-I thoroughly and understanding the same put his signature in the same. He also admitted in his cross examination that during the moratorium period, he did not pay pre-EMI interest for his home loan and S.B.I. Suraksha loan.

              Thus, from the papers submitted by the complainant and opposite party, it is clear that complainant was supposed to pay the pre-EMI interest for his home loan as well as the S.B.I. Suraksha loan during moratorium period and he did not pay the same. He also did not request the opposite party for resetting of his EMI after competition of the moratorium period. The opposite party on the other hand by adducing cogent and reliable evidence in law able to establish the fact that the deducted amount of Rs.58,796.00 on last 07/11/2015 and Rs.16065.00 on last 27/11/2013 from the Savings Bank Account of the complainant in connection with the home loan and SBI Suraksha Loan which were later on credited to his loan account were accumulated as arrear, due to less payment of EMI by the complainant as the EMI which was paying by him did not include the pre – EMI interest. The opposite party also adduced evidence that they have approached the complainant for rescheduling the E.M.I. of his both the loan account but the complainant did not respond, so, we are constrained to hold the view that there was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party while deducting Rs.58,796.00 on last 07/11/2015 and Rs.16065.00 on last 27/11/2013 from the Savings Bank Account of the complainant in connection with the home loan and the SBI Suraksha Loan and credited to his loan account by  virtue of the rights given  through the loan agreement (Annexure-E) executed on 14/11/2011 by the Complainant in favour of the opposite party.         

               Thus, in view of above observation we do not find any cogent and plausible reason to allow the petition filed by the complainant. He is not entitled for any relief in this case as there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party while deducting Rs.58,796.00 on last 07/11/2015 and Rs.16065.00 on last 27/11/2013 from the Savings Bank Account of the complainant in connection with the home loan and SBI Suraksha Loan and credited to his loan Account.

                  In result the points No.1 & 2 are answered in negative and go against  the petitioner.

                                                 O   R  D   E  R

8.                        In view of the above discussion, it is found that the petitioner has not succeeded to prove that there was a deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.

                       Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner U/S12 of the Consumer protection, 1986 is dismissed on contest.

                             Furnish copy of the Judgment and Order free of cost to both the parties.

                          Given under the hand and seal of this Commission, we signed and delivered this Judgment on this 18^th   Day of December 2023.