Punjab

Sangrur

CC/559/2014

Bahadur Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Shri SS Dhindsa

04 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                       

                                                Complaint No.  559

                                                Instituted on:    22.09.2014

                                                Decided on:       04.03.2015

 

Bhahadur Singh son of Jeon Singh resident of Village Kheri Gillan, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

State Bank of India , Industrial Area, Mehlan Road, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

 

For the complainant  :       Shri S.S.Dhindsa, Adv.

For OP                     :       Shri Ashi Goyal, Adv.

 

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

 

Order by : K.C.Sharma, Member.

 

1.             Shri Bhahadur Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained the services of the OP by taking tractor loan and Kissan Credit card limit vide account numbers 10670145267 and 10670131004 respectively for Rs.222000/- for which the OP got mortgaged his land of 17 Kanal 6 Marlas in favour of bank.  The complainant used to repay the loan amount from time to time. It is further averred that in the year 2008, the OP issued a letter dated 5.7.2008 to the complainant that his loan amount vide account number 10670145267 falls under the government’s agriculture loan waiver and settlement scheme. It is further averred that as per the scheme, the complainant agreed to pay ¾ share of the defaulted amount of Rs.72991/- in three equal instalments of Rs.18428/- which were accepted by the OP.  The complainant paid the above said three instalments to the OP in time.  It is further averred that on 4.3.2014 he complainant also paid the total outstanding amount of KCC vide account number 10670131004 after settlement up to Rs.35,500/-. But the Op also got Rs.24200/- deposited in the tractor loan account, despite payment of three instalments.  As such, the complainant has alleged that the OP has demanded an amount of Rs.24200/- in excess.  The complainant has further alleged that the OP has illegally raised a demand of Rs.48,313/- against account number 106701310004 vide letter dated 31.7.2014.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.24,400/- with 18% interest and further to direct the OP to withdraw the letter dated 31.7.2014 and to issue no due certificate regarding the same and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, it is admitted that the complainant availed the tractor loan and cash credit limit from the OP against mortgage of his land.  It is denied that the complainant used to pay instalments of the loan in time.  However, it is admitted that the complainant was invited to settle the accounts under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 and the complainant was also given relief under the said scheme in respect of eligible amount.  It is further averred that in the tractor loan account, the outstanding amount against the complainant was Rs.96068/- on the date of implementation of the scheme in question and the eligible amount under the scheme was Rs.72991/-. The OP opened an account number 30505946019 in the name of the complainant under the Debt Relief Scheme and transferred the eligible amount in the said account on 29.9.2008. It is further averred that in the tractor loan account number 10670145267 of the complainant, the outstanding amount as on 4.8.2008 was Rs.96068/-,  out of which the eligible amount was Rs.72991/- and as per the scheme the eligible amount was bifurcated into instalments of Rs.18,248/- each and three instalments were to be paid by the complainant and fourth instalment was payable by the bank.  It is further stated that after adjustment/credit of Rs.72991/- against total outstanding of Rs.96068/- the amount which remained to be payable by the complainant was Rs.23077/- under the tractor loan account and against this payable amount the complainant deposited Rs.24200/-. However, the accrued interest on the total due amount was also recoverable from the complainant which do not come under the Debt Relief Scheme.   It is further stated that as on 31.3.2014, the total due amount along with accrued interest was Rs.52906/- and against this over due amount, the complainant was asked by the OP to pay Rs.44052/- under the tractor loan account under one time settlement and thereby deducting Rs.24200/- from Rs.44052/-, the complainant was required to pay Rs.19874/- to regularize the tractor loan account. Further it is admitted that the OP bank had sent a letter to the complainant indicating that an amount of Rs.48,313/- is outstanding as on 31.7.2014 in his account number 10670131004.  The complainant was further informed regarding on going special scheme for one time settlement of loan account and the complainant was advised that an amount of Rs.12,711/- is to be paid under OTS scheme against total outstanding amount of Rs.48313/- as applicable interest from the date of NPA has been waived off for settlement under OTS, but the complainant till date did not avail the said settlement scheme.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.  

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of bank pass book, Ex.C-2 copy of letter, Ex.C-3 copy of jamabandi, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-9 copies of receipts, Ex.C-10 copy of letter and Ex.C-11 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 debt relief scheme 2008, Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-4 copies of settlement of accounts, Ex.OP-5 affidavit, Ex.OP-6 copy of agreement of hypothecation, Ex.OP-7 copy of agriculture credit application, Ex.OP-8 copy of form II and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             The main point of controversy in this case is with regard to the amount demanded by the OP vide their letter Ex.C-10, whereas the version of the complainant is that the account was adjusted as per the terms and conditions of the Agricultural Debit Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008.

 

6.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents produced on record, we find that at the time of implementation of Agricultural Debit Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, which is Ex.OP-1 on record, the total amount due towards the complainant was Rs.96068/- and out of this an amount of Rs.72991/- was adjusted by the parties as per the scheme Ex.OP-1.  A sum of Rs.23077/- was still outstanding in the account of the complainant and the complainant on 4.3.2014 deposited a sum of Rs.24,200/- vide document Ex.C-5 in order to liquidate the over due amount, but still  the OP has raised a demand and sent notice to the complainant, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-10 for payment of Rs.48,313/- with interest as on 31.07.2014.

 

7.             The version of the OP is that the accrued interest on the total amount outstanding at the time of implementation of the Agricultural Debit Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 was not included in the eligible amount of Rs.72,991/- and now the same has been demanded along with the balance amount of Rs.23077/-.

 

8.             We have also gone through the Agricultural Debit Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 in which under the head ‘Eligible amount under the clause 4.1(b) and 4.1(b)(i), it is mentioned as :-

“4.1(b) In the case of an investment loan, the instalments of such loan that are over due (together with applicable interest on such instalments) if the loan was :

(i)     Disbursed up to March 31,2007 and overdue as on December 31,2007 and remaining unpaid uptil February 29, 2008.”

 

9.             If we go by the above guidelines, then the interest portion was to be included in the eligible amount at the time of implementation of the Agricultural Debit Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. Now, that the eligible amount has since been settled by the parties, so the amount outstanding after adjustment of the eligible amount is Rs.23077/-, which is still outstanding as over due amount towards the complainant.

 

10.           The learned counsel for the OP has vehemently contended that the OP is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.23077/- along with interest.  In support of it, the OP has placed on record the document Ex.OP-6, which is a copy of agreement of hypothecation and loan application, Ex.OP-7 and form 11, which is a copy of Ex.OP-8.

 

11.           We have gone through all the documents placed on record, which contain information of the land, repayment plan and, loan advanced and bears the signature of the complainant, whereas the document Ex.OP-8 also bears the signature of the OP.  In these documents placed by the OP, we do not find any mention with regard to the charging of rate of interest from the complainant.  The interest columns in this document are blank.  When this was pointed out to the learned counsel for the OP during the arguments, then the learned counsel for the OP stated that the rate of interest has been mentioned in the revenue record Ex.C-3 produced by the complainant.  In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that on the basis of revenue record, the OP cannot claim any rate of interest from the complainant and that too when the rate of interest has neither been mentioned in the term loan agreement Ex.C-6 nor in the loan application.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has already deposited a sum of Rs.24,200/- on 4.3.2014 vide document Ex.C-5, which is in excess than the over due amount of Rs.23077/-.

 

12.           From the facts mentioned above, we find that the OP is deficient in service. Further the OP cannot take advantage of its own wrong and in light of the term loan agreement, the OP cannot charge any interest on the amount of Rs.23077/- and the demand of Rs.48313/- raised vide letter Ex.C-10 is unjustified.

13.           In the light of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.1123/- (Rs.24200/- minus Rs.23077/-) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 22.09.2014 till realisation. Further the OP is directed to issue no due certificate to the complainant with regard to his both the accounts with the OPs. We further order the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.11,000/- as consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses.

 

14.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                March 4, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member