The petitioner Arvind Kumar Jain filed a petition u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act for seeking relief.
The fact of the case as revealed from the petition as well as from the evidence is that the son of the complainant known by the name Manish Kr. Jain took education loan from the State Bank of India, Raiganj Branch, Uttar Dinajpur in the year 2008 amounting to Rs.4,00,000/-. From the petition it is found that due to higher study Manish Kr. Jain was not able to get good job for which he was unable to pay the installment of loan amount. From 2013 Manish Kr. Jain started paying the amount constantly and he paid more than Rs.3,00,000/- to the bank up to the March 2015. On the petition it is found that on 11th March 2015 Manish Kr. Jain gave g mail in favour of the respondent/O.P for submitting statement of payment of loan. But the O.P did not pay any heed to the response of g mail. From the petition it is found that Manish Kr. Jain paid installment of loan amount regularly up to 07.11.15 and he paid Rs.4,00,000/- approx. The O.P. falsely issued a lawyer notice dt. 09.11.15 for demand of outstanding amount of Rs.4,61,006 and said demand is totally false, fabricated and baseless. Manish Kr. Jain several time gave g mail in favour of the respondent/O.P for detail calculation of the interest deducted, but the O.P did not respond to the g mail. From the petition as well as the evidence it is found that Manish Kr. Jain paid his total loan amount as on 07.11.15. But the O.P without supplying the statement of account created pressure upon the complainant illegally for payment. Being no other alternative the complainant has been forced to come to the Forum for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental pain and for getting proper statement of detail calculation of interest.
The O.P/S.B.I contested the case by filing the written version denying all the material allegations leveled against O.P. contending inter alia that the petition is not maintainable in law and the case is bad for non joinder and miss joinder of parties.
The definite defence case is that before sanctioning the loan amount a loan agreement was executed between Manish Kr. Jain and O.P/Bank on 20.06.08. According to the agreement Manish Kr. Jain was bound to inform the bank authority after getting service. But on perusal of the petition it is found that Manish Kr. Jain availed the service and the said fact was not intimated to the bank and thus it is a clear breach of agreement. The male I.D was not registered before the bank. So the bank authority is not responsible to make any communication with the mail communication to any unregistered male I.D. It is not admitted by the bank that Manish Kr. Jain regularly paid up to 07.11.15 and paid approx Rs.4,00,000/-.
The Further defence case is that Manish Kr. Jain is an willful defaulter and he did not paid the loan amount to the bank authority, as such bank authority served a legal notice claiming Rs.4,61,006/-. The further defence case is that the complainant did not come to the Forum with clean hand. So, considering the facts and circumstances the prayer as made by the complainant is likely to be dismissed with cost.
DECISION WITH REASONS
In order to prove the case the complainant Arvind Kr. Jain was examined as P.W.1 and he was cross examined. No other witness was examined on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand the O.P/S.B.I has examined Subhrendu Mandal as O.P.W.1. No other witness was examined on behalf of the O.P.
At the time of argument the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submits that the complainant have paid approx Rs.4,00,000/-. The O.P falsely issued a lawyer notice demanding Rs.4,61,006/- which is completely false and fabricated. Moreover, Ld.lawyer for the complainant further argued that the statement of account was not submitted to the complainant by the bank authority inspite of supplying the g mail to the bank authority. So, the complainant was not aware about the loan amount. So the O.P/S.B.I is making harassment creating mental pain and agony to the complainant for which he has filed the instant case claiming of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental pain.
On the other hand Ld. Lawyer for the O.P argued by filing the written document viz statement of account, loan agreement etc. showing that the total loan amount was taken Rs.4,00,000/-. Interest applied up to 31.12.2015 of Rs.4,28,330/-. The total dues comes as on 31.12.2015 to Rs.8,28,330/-, though on perusal of the statement it is found that the complainant repaid to the tune of Rs.3,77,324/-. So the net outstanding dues is Rs.4,51,006/- plus interest till 31.08.2017 of Rs.1,05,000/-. So total dues as on 31.08.2017 is Rs.5,56,006. By those documents the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P wants to impress upon the Forum that the loan has not been cleared up. So, the O.P/Bank issued notice. Issuing notice upon a defaulter of loan is not harassment by creating mental pressure. The Forum is also the same view with the argument of the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P that mere issuing the Lawyer’s notice for making payment of outstanding dues is not harassment. He further argued that the loan was an education loan. According to the terms and conditions the complainant did not inform after completion of the course. Nor even he informed about getting of his service. From the cross examination it is found that he paid income tax. So that it is proved that he was in service.
Next point argued by the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P is that the statement of accounts was not supplied to the complainant to the g mail number of the complainant. On perusal of the record it is found that the g mail number was not recorded in the bank record. So the bank authority is not bound to send the same to any unregistered g mail number of the bank. It is further mentioned that the instant case has been filed after receiving the lawyer’s notice. The lawyer’s notice was issued on 09.11.15 whereas the instant case has been filed on 19.01.16. This is a clear indication that after receiving the lawyer’s notice the instant case has been filed. So, on considering the facts and circumstances the Forum does not find that the O.P created any harassment upon the complainant.
So, considering all facts and circumstances the instant case is required to be dismissed.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence, it is
ORDERED,
That the instant consumer complaint being No. CC - 08/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost. .
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
