Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/139/2016

Vinod Kumar Bhalla - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Jindal

02 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/139/2016
Date of Institution	:	25/02/2016
Date of Decision	:	02/05/2018

 

Vinod Kumar Bhalla son of Sh. Sadhu Ram Bhalla, resident of House No.1662, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh, now residing at House No.3320, Chandigarh Police Housing Society, Sector 51, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1]     State Bank of India, through its General Manager, The Mall, Patiala.

2]     State Bank of India, through its Regional Manager, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

3]     State Bank of India, through its Manager, Sector     22-D, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM :	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

       

PRESENT:	:	Sh. Gaurav Jindal, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Sumit Batra, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that in the year 2004, the Complainant availed an education loan (Cash Credit Limit) of Rs.3 lacs for his son namely Kapil Bhalla, from Opposite Party No.3. It has been averred that in a span of around 3 years comprising total 7 semesters starting from August 2004 till May 2007 a total of Rs.2,41,028/- was paid by the Opposite Party No.3 to the Institute directly. The fees of 8^th semester was paid by the Complainant from his own pocket and was not paid by the Opposite Party No.3. Against the above loan amount granted by the Opposite Party No.3, Opposite Party No.3 had been debiting the amount of installment, every month at its own, out of the saving bank account of the Complainant. It has been alleged that the Opposite Party No.3 had been charging the interest per month whereas it should have been at six monthly/yearly rest and had been deducting the amount of Rs.700/- only from the account of the Complainant which was very much on the lower side due to which the Bank had been charging interest on interest due i.e. compound interest due to which the Complainant suffered loss and because of this, the interest kept on increasing on the balance amount whereas it should have been decreasing if proper amount was charged from the Complainant. As the balance amount kept on increasing for no fault of the Complainant, on his asking, Opposite Party No.3 started debiting Rs.5,000/- from his saving account from 23.02.2009 to 28.03.2014 i.e. approx. for 05 years. In this way, Rs.30,100/- (43 installments per month x Rs.700) and thereafter Rs.3 lacs (60 installments per month x Rs.5000) was repaid to Opposite Party No.2 against the loan of Rs.2,41,028/-. Thereafter, the Complainant in order to settle his account approached Opposite Party No.3 in March, 2014, where on being informed that an amount of Rs.28,000/- was due, the said amount was debited from his saving account and credited in the loan account. Per account statement, as on 31.03.2014, the total outstanding balance existed in the loan account was Rs.89.280/-, thus, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 to issue no dues certificate in April, 2014. But to the utter shock and dismay of the Complainant, he was told that due to some mistake in the account statement, Rs.1 lac was still outstanding against the loan account. Accordingly, Opposite Party No.2 debited Rs.50,000/- on 31.05.2014 and Rs.50,000/- on 28.06.2014 i.e. Rs.1 lac from the saving bank account of the Complainant. Notwithstanding this, again an amount of Rs.89.85/- was shown as balance amount on 28.06.2014. Further, Opposite Party No.3 deducted/debited the amount of Rs.5,000/- on 20.06.2015, Rs.5,000/- on 15.07.2015 and Rs.5,000/- on 28.07.2015 from the account of the Complainant without disclosing the same to him. Eventually, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 11.09.2015 upon the Opposite Party No.2 to refund the amount of Rs.1,14,910.18P (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.5,000/-  -  89.82) along with interest thereon, along with liquidated charges, but to no success. Alleging that the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party, the complainants have filed the instant complaint.
2.         The Opposite Parties in their joint written statement have not disputed the factual matrix of the case. However, it has been averred that due to upgradation in the System and due to some technical error, the monthly interest was not charged properly in the loan account of the Complainant since 13.07.2005. Even otherwise, the Complainant was well aware of the terms and conditions of the loan and that the EMI fixed was Rs.6486/- per month, but chose to pay only Rs.5,000/- per month. On knowing about charging lesser interest from the Complainant, the Opposite Parties immediately brought this to his notice, upon which he gave the assurance that he would clear at the outstanding dues due to the Bank as early as possible. It has been asserted that amount is still due and recoverable from the Complainant and due to this reason no due certificate could not be issued to him. However, inspite of depositing the same, the Complainant chose to file the present Complaint. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments advanced by the parties and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
5.         The main grievance of the Complainant is that against a loan of Rs.2,41,028/- availed by him, the Opposite Parties have recovered almost Rs.4,73,100/- which is highly excessive, irrational, arbitrary and illegal and an amount of Rs.59,081/- is still shown to be pending against the loan amount.
6.         On perusal of the loan sanctioning letter issued by the Opposite Party No.3, we find that the EMI is Rs.6,486/- for 60 months; whereas, from the Statement of Account furnished by the Complainant himself shows that EMI of Rs.5,000/- was being recovered by the Bank. This means that the Complainant was in the knowledge that against the EMI of Rs.6,486/-, he was paying Rs.5,000/- p.m. Moreover, the Complainant has miserably failed to produce on record any documentary evidence to suggest that he has ever agitated the issue of short recovery against the loan taken by him, from his savings bank account. In these set of circumstances, we are of the concerted opinion that Bank was rightful in recovering the balance amount, along with the agreed interest, from the Complainant, as per the terms and conditions of the loan.  Thus, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.
7.        For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.    
8.        The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced                        

02.05.2018

                                 Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

      

                           Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”