Revision Petition No.1660 of 2013 has been filed against concurrent orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT of Chandigarh. Both have dismissed the complaint of the petitioner Mr. Ramesh Chandra Singh.
2. The matter pertains to an EMD loan of Rs.2,91,405/- taken by the Complainant from OP/State Bank of India, Chandigarh branch. Allegedly, OP/bank failed to inform the Complainant about progress of EMD loan and made changes in the chargeable rate of interest, from time to time. It also wrote to the Chandigarh Housing Board for cancellation of the allotment to the Complainant as well as to CIBIL to add the loan given to the Complainant in the list of non-performing assets. Even intimation through e-mail or mobile phone was not sent before taking such action. The Complainant being an officer of Indian Air Force, had to move from location to location as part of his duty and was therefore unable to keep track of his loan account on regular basis.
3. De hors, the case of OP/State Bank of India was that for the purposes of this EMD loan the Complainant had opened a saving bank account on 26.4.2008. The EMD loan was sanctioned as he had been allotted a flat under the relevant scheme of the Chandigarh Housing Board. Subsequently, a number of letters were sent to the Complainant at his local address furnished by him in the application form. But, he never informed the bank about his transfer and shifting from Chandigarh. Nor was any address given to the bank for further correspondence. In this background, the OP was left with no alternative but to write a letter to the office of the Complainant. The Complainant took no action to repay the EMD loan. Nor did he respond to the letters from the bank. In this background, the bank was forced to write to the Chandigarh Housing Board for cancellation of the allotment. While dismissing the complaint, the District Forum has categorically observed that:-
“9. However, otherwise also the facts speak for themselves, beyond any doubt about the dilly-dallying, irresponsible & careless attitude of the complainant, who himself failed to perform his agreed/legal duty to repay the said loan availed from the OP Ban, which is a public Financial Institution.
10. The Complainant had utilized the public money through OP Bank in the shape of loan, in order to get a Flat under CHB Scheme, but did not return it. By such illegal acts, the complainant has abused his office of serving in Essential Services, by not paying the instalments of loan on the pretext that he was transferred & shifted from the place where he was residing initially.
11. Though the onus to prove this fact was squarely lies upon the complainant, but he has not been able to prove it, by leading/adducing any certain documentary & convincing evidence that he ever informed the OP Bank about the change of his address or about his transferred locations, from time to time.”
4. Similarly, the State Commission has observed that from a perusal of the loan application form it was seen that the Complainant gave ‘No.543/C, Sector 46A, Chandigarh -160047’ as his present residential address as well as his permanent address. All correspondence between July, 2009 and March, 2011 was made on this address. However, the bank received no reply from him. Thereafter, the bank wrote letters to his official address in July and December, 2011, again with no response from the Complainant. In this background, the State Commission has observed that:
“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.”
5. We have heard the petitioner/Complainant Mr. Ramesh Chandra Singh, in person and perused the record submitted by him. He was also allowed to file his written argument. We find that the entire thrust of the revision petition and his written arguments is to show that the respondent/State Bank of India did not make enough effort to contact the petitioner/Complainant before declaring EMD loan as a non-performing asset. It is also alleged that the respondent/bank should have informed the Complainant over mobile phone or through SMS or E-mail. But, nowhere in the revision petition or in the written arguments any attempt is made to explain what steps were taken by the petitioner himself either to repay the loan or even to acknowledge the letters written by the OP/Bank.
6. Documents placed on record by the revision petitioner himself show that the loan was sanctioned on 26.4.2008. The details terms of repayment of this loan are also contained therein. In the event of non-allotment, the entire refund of the earnest money was to be adjusted towards the EMD loan and in the event of successful allotment, the entire outstanding amounts including interest was to be repaid within 15 days from the allotment. In his case, it meant an obligation to repay within 15 days of allotment. In this background, the contention of the petitioner in his written arguments that he visited the office of the respondent in September, 2011 to get details and to repay the loan carries no conviction whatsoever. It also does not explain his long silence since sanction of the loan in 2008. 7. In view of the above, we find no substance in this revision petition. It fails to carry any conviction against categorical and concurrent findings of facts reached by the fora below. The revision petition is consequently dismissed for want of merit. No orders as to costs. |
