STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 437 of 2012 |
Date of Institution | : | 31.12.2012 |
Date of Decision | : | 15.01.2013 |
Sh. Ramesh Chandra Singh C/o Nidhi Rakesh Singh, H.No.A-107, Ground Floor, Block A, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi – 110027.
……Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
1] State Bank of India through its Chief Manager, Sector 14, Punjab University Branch Chandigarh.
2] Regional Zonal Office of the State Bank of India through its General Manager, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by:Sh. Gagandeep Goel, Advocate for the appellant.
PER MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.11.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant).
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant in response to the SBI advertisement for 100% EMD Finance (Rs.2,91,405/-) visited SBI PU Branch and deposited Rs.7,285/- as well as processing fee of Rs.500/- alongwith all requisite documents, in order to avail of the said EMD Finance facility for CHB Sector 63 - 2 Bed Room Scheme. It was stated that the Opposite Party Bank opened a new bank account, in the name of complainant, for the purpose of said scheme as well as grant of EMD Loan. It was further stated that the said account was opened at the Chandigarh address of the complainant, whereas, he was residing at Gwalior at that time. It was further stated that the Opposite Party Bank never informed the complainant, with proper documents of EMD Loan account, running and active with their branch from its opening day i.e. 26.4.2008 till 08.10.2011. It was further stated that the Opposite Party Bank failed to inform the complainant about the progress of EMD Loan account on time and also did not intimate as regards the ROI fluctuation on time via proper channel. It was further stated that the Bank also failed to inform the complainant, when EMD home loan account was converted into Personal Loan account with very high interest rate, without any proper reason. It was further stated that the complaint lodged with the Opposite Party - Bank and its Zonal Office were not replied. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were lowering the image of the complainant by writing letters to the Commanding Officer. It was further stated that the Opposite Party Bank also wrote to the CHB for the cancellation of allotment of the complainant. It was further stated that the Opposite Party Bank approached CIBIL to add the name of the complainant under NPA without any reason, though he had never been informed about any installment irregularity. It was further stated that the Opposite Party Bank failed to take legal orders from court as per the agreement, before writing to the Chandigarh Housing Board for the cancellation of allotment. It was further stated that the SBI failed to communicate over mobile phone via call or SMS nor sent any e-mails to the complainant, even though the e-mail address in the loan application was mentioned, which was the fastest way of communication, with regard to his EMD finance account, even though they received returned registered posts in the past. It was further stated that the SBI also passed the mobile number of the complainant to their recovery centre for frequently calling and harassing him. It was further stated that the Recovery Centre of the OPs called at any time of the day to liquidate the EMD Loan amount. It was further stated that the complainant, being in Indian Air Force, had to go on different locations, for defense exercises and was not able to track his loan case, and its progress, on regular basis. It was further stated that, in the year 2010, the CHB informed the complainant about his registration number in Sector 63 Scheme. It was further stated that the complainant was shocked to receive a call in Sept., 2011 i.e. after 3 years, from the Opposite Party Bank, informing him to liquidate the loan account, by depositing Rs.4,93,000/-, but when he asked for the details, nothing was disclosed and supplied. It was further stated that the complainant had written many letters to the Opposite Parties, for proper & fair governance to settle his loan account, but nothing was done. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties sent regd. letter at the local given address of the complainant from 18th July, 2009 to 16.3.2011 (Ann.C-3 to C-7), which were received back undelivered, but even then they did not think for an alternative mode of communication with the complainant. It was further stated that the letter (Ann.C-8) was also not delivered to the complainant. It was further stated that on making personal visit to the Opposite Parties, they supplied the copies of communications alongwith EMD agreement paper (Ann.C-1). It was further stated that the complainant requested the Opposite Parties many a time, to settle the matter, but they did not do so and instead informed him to pay Rs.4,20,346/- as outstanding dues. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), directing the Opposite Parties, not to calculate interest overdue amount with immediate effect; not to write the CHB for cancellation; not to add his name as defaulter in CIBIL, pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation; Rs.80,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.55,000/- for damaging his repudiation and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses, was filed.
3. The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, stated that for opening the EMD account, saving bank account was required and, as such, the complainant was asked to open the saving bank account first, which was ultimately opened on 26.4.2008 and on the basis of this, EMD Account was opened in his name. It was further stated that the complainant also executed several documents in favour of the Bank. It was further stated that the EMD loan of Rs.2,91,405/- was sanctioned to the complainant, against the said scheme of the CHB in which he was successful. It was further stated that a number of letters were written to the complainant, at his local address, furnished by him, in the loan application form. It was further stated that the complainant never informed the bank about his transfer and shifting from Chandigarh. It was further stated that the complainant never informed the present correspondence address to the bank and when no response was received from him inspite of sending a number of letters, at his given addresses, the Bank was left with no alternative, than to write letters (Ann.R-9 to R-15) at the official address of the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant was successful in getting the Flat under the said Scheme of CHB, hence the earnest money financed by the Bank to him was not refunded by the CHB. It was further stated that the same was to be repaid by the complainant. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, wrote a number of letters to the complainant to liquidate the loan account, and to close the same, but he neither responded back, nor made any effort to adjust the loan amount, outstanding in his loan account. It was further stated that the bank was forced to write to the CHB for the cancellation of allotment, with a copy to his employer, as per its normal practice, in case of default on the part of borrower. It was further stated that the said letter was written as per Clause No.3 of the Agreement dated 26.4.2008, executed by the complainant in favour of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the account of the complainant became Non-Performing Asset (NPA), as he himself violated the terms and conditions of the loan document, and had not liquidated the outstanding amount, in the loan account, since long despite repeated requests. It was further stated that there was, thus, neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, contained in the complaint were denied.
4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, vide the impugned order, as sated above.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/complainant, has filed the instant appeal.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/ complainant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
8. The Counsel for the appellant/complainant assailed the order of the District Forum on two grounds, i.e. (1) respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1, charged wrong interest and (2) it shifted the EMD Housing Loan Account of the appellant/complainant to Personal Loan Account, without his consent/permission. He further submitted that respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 never communicated, for declaring the Loan Account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA), to the complainant, on his mobile phone, e-mail, through sms or at his permanent address furnished by him, in the loan application form. He further submitted that the appellant/complainant, was still ready and willing to repay the loan amount, at the agreed rate of interest, but these facts were not considered by the District Forum, which wrongly dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant. He further submitted that the impugned order, passed by the District Forum, dismissing the complaint, being illegal, is liable to set aside.
9. The perusal of the Loan Application Form (Annexures C-1 (1/11) and R-1), on the file of the District Forum, reveals that while applying for the loan, the appellant/complainant gave his “Present Residential Address” as “#543/C, Sector 46A, Chandigarh – 160047”, as also his “Permanent Address”. Further from perusal of the Annexures C-3 to C-7/R-9 to R-13, letters dated July 2009, 17.03.2010, 27.09.2010, 11.11.2010 and 16.03.2011, it is established that all the correspondence between the Opposite Parties and the complainant, took place at the “Present Residential Address” of the latter. When no response was received by the Bank, from the complainant, against the aforesaid letters, it wrote letters dated 11.07.2011 and 06.12.2011 (Annexures R-14 & 15), to him, at his official address, but he never responded to the same. Thus, the Opposite Parties sent communications, to the complainant, repeatedly to liquidate his loan but he failed to respond. Ultimately, the Chandigarh Housing Board was informed, as per Clause 3 of Annexure C-1, to cancel the allotment. The Opposite Parties, were, thus, not in any way negligent in performing their duties. Hence, there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the respondents/Opposite Parties.
10. So far as the second argument of the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, as regards the shifting of EMD Housing Loan Account of the appellant/complainant to Personal Loan Account, without his consent/permission and subsequently declaring it as Non-Performing Asset (NPA), is concerned, undoubtedly, the appellant/complainant was duly intimated at his present residential address, as also at his official address. Thus, this argument of Counsel for the appellant/complainant, is without any merit, and the same being unsustainable, is rejected. Undisputedly, the appellant/complainant defaulted in repaying the loan amount within the stipulated period, and thus, violated Clause No.3 of the Arrangement Letter (Annexure C-1 at Page 23 of District Forum’s file). In this view of the matter, in default of re-payment of loan amount, the Opposite Parties rightly declared the Loan Account of the appellant/complainant as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). In our considered opinion, the District Forum, after taking all these facts into consideration, rightly dismissed the complaint of the appellant/ complainant.
11. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant.
12. The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, is dismissed, with no orders as to costs. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is upheld.
14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
15th January, 2013.
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
[NEENA SANDHU]
MEMBER
Ad
STATE COMMISSION
(First Appeal No.437 of 2012)
Argued by:Sh. Gagandeep Goel, Advocate for the appellant.
Dated the 15th day of January, 2013.
ORDER
Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, has been dismissed, at preliminary stage, with no orders as to costs.
(NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)) PRESIDENT | |
Ad
