Complaint No: 468 of 2018.

                                                                    Date of Institution: 26.11.2018.

                                                                           Date of order: 16.10.2023.

Anil Kumar Son of Sh. Prern Sagar, resident of House No. 515, Opposite Samta Yog Ashram, Sangalpura Road, Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143521

                                                                                                                                                               …..........Complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                 VERSUS

1.       The Assistant General Manager of State Bank of India, Regional Office Dhangu Road, Pathankot. Pin Code – 145001.

2.       The Chief Manager of State Bank of India, Tibri Road, Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143521.

3.       SBI General Insurance Company Limited, fourth floor, Darbara Complex, SCO-113, DSC Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Chownk Rattan Singh, through its concerned authority. Pin Code – 143001.

4.       SBI Bank Branch Tibri Road, Gurdaspur, through its Branch Manager. Pin Code – 143521.     

                                                                                                                                                                ….Opposite parties.

                                                            Complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Sarthak Mahajan, Advocate.

    For the Opposite Parties No.1,2 & 4: Sh.Vikas Sharma, Advocate.

    For the Opposite Party No.3: Sh.Sandeep Ohri, Advocate.

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Anil Kumar, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against State Bank of India Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant applied for term home loan from the state Bank of India Branch Tibri Road, Gurdaspur. It is submitted that the complainant was sanctioned a term home loan of Rs.5,00,000/- in the month of October, 2013 out of which the complainant had availed only Rs.4,50,000/-. It is further pleaded that said amount of Rs.4,50,000/- had already been paid back to the state Bank of India by the complainant alongwith the interest in the month of October, 2016 hence the complainant is a bonafide customer of the State Bank of India. It is further submitted that at the time of disbursing of loan the manager advances, of the opposite party No. 2 also issued SBI General Insurance policy bearing No. 0000000004545054 the said loan and installments of premium was fixed @ of Rs.513/- per month for which the complainant gave standing instruction to the opposite party No. 2 to deduct installments of premium to be paid to SBI General Insurance Company Limited by debiting his account bearing No. 33248234411 being run in the name and title Anil Kumar and Aruna. It is further pleaded that after the home loan was paid back by the Complainant to SBI, the complainant requested the opposite parties to stop deducting the premium of insurance from his account but when the complainant has received the statement of account, it has transpired that an amount of Rs.513/- i.e. monthly installments of premium is still being deducted by the opposite parties illegally and unlawfully with the effect 11/2016 up to date despite the housing loan having been paid back with interest in the month 10/2016. It is further alleged that when the complainant repaid his loan account in 10/2016 the opposite party No. 2 released his original sale deed which was taken by the opposite parties in original by way of equitable mortgage at the time of sanctioning home loan under reference thus the payment of SBI home loan insurance premium was to be stopped with the effect 10/2016. It is further alleged that till date a sum of Rs.11,799/- has been deducted from the account of the complainant on account of premium of SBI General Insurance for which the opposite parties have got no rights and same has been deducted by the opposite parties illegally, unlawfully and deliberately with the reason best known to the opposite parties. It is further alleged that the opposite parties have violated the instruction of SBI General Insurance policy guidelines contained under the head "General conditions" in the manual of SBI General Insurance Policy. It is further pleaded that the complainant vide various personal request with the effect 10/2016 to 01/2017 pleaded to the opposite parties to stop debiting monthly insurance premium but the insurance premium has continuously been deducted from the account of the complainant even after the repayment of loan. It is further pleaded that Complainant vide written registered request dated 16.02.2017 requested the opposite parties to stop deducting the monthly premium from the subject account. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 2 invited the complainant to hold discussion on the matter but despite repeated visit of the complainant to the bank, but no step has been taken by the opposite parties in this direction. It is further pleaded that the complainant also applied for information under RTI Act on 16.02.2017 and 06.04.2017 alongwith postal orders for Rs.10/- each bearing No. 31F716795 and 3F846743 regarding the continuous deduction of the premium from the account, but the information was not furnished to the complainant by the concerned authority of the bank. It is further pleaded that the opposite party No. 2 has been shown the written request dated 16.02.2017 with RTI application dated 06.04.2017 seeking instruction governing debiting monthly insurance premium after complete payment of loan amount with interest, but the concerned authority did not furnish the desired information to the complainant which shows that the opposite parties deliberately ignored the genuine requests of the complainant and cause harassment to the complainant. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.11,799/- deducted on the account of Insurance Premium alongwith interest at the market rate. The opposite parties may be ordered to pay Rs.10,000/- on account of mental harassment and agony suffered by the complainant at the hands of the opposite parties. The opposite parties may also be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigations expenses to the complainant, in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1, 2 & 4 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. It is further pleaded that no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the answering Opposite parties for filing the present complaint and the complainant has filed the present false complaint by concocting a false story, and dragged the answering opposite parties in false litigation, as such the complainant is liable to be burdened with special costs and the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint by setting up a false and concocted story with sole motive to harass and black mail the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that calculation data of the amount deducted and reimbursed to the complainant is as under:-  

It is further pleaded that in this way an amount of Rs.5747/- was outstanding in Suraksha Loan Account of the complainant and the complainant was requested to pay the same enabling the opposite parties to close the account and to stop the further deductions of EMI from his account, but the complainant instead of making the payment of above mentioned amount filed the present complaint with sole motive to cause unnecessary harassment to the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that the complainant has not come to the Hon’ble Court with clean hands and as such he is not entitled to any relief from this Ld. Commission which has been paid in excess to the complainant is recoverable from him. It is further pleaded that the complainant was fully apprised about the amount paid in excess to him. It is further pleaded that notice dated 25.09.2018 was also duly replied. But inspite of that the complainant has filed the present false complaint just to harass the opposite parties.

          On merits, the opposite parties No.1, 2 & 4 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

4.       Upon notice, the opposite party No. 3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is further pleaded that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. It is pleaded that as per record only One Policy having No. 0000000004545054 has been issued and the period of insurance is w.e.f. 07.06.2016 to 06.06.2031 and the premium of Rs.5361/- has been received by the Insurance Company. It is further pleaded that except this no other amount has been charged by the insurance company/answering opposite party No.3, so there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.3. Even the complainant himself attached the copy of Policy with this complaint and all the facts mentioned above are dully mentioned in the policy. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite party No.3.

          On merits, the opposite party No.3 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5.       Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Anil Kumar, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16.

6.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1, 2 & 4 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Kamal Dhingra, (Chief Manager, SBI Branch Tibri Road, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OP-1,2,4/1 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1,2,4/2 to Ex.OP-1,2,4/3.

7.       Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has filed an affidavit of Sh. Akash Jha, (Authorized Signatory, SBI Gen. Ins Co. Ltd, Delhi) alongwith reply.

8.       Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

9.       Written arguments not filed by both the parties.

10.     Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had obtained term loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from opposite party No.2 and had availed only Rs.4,50,000/- and the entire loan amount was repaid in October, 2016. It is further argued that at the time of disbursement of loan opposite party No.2 also issued SBI general insurance policy against monthly installment of Rs.513/-. It is further argued that inspite of repayment of entire loan amount in October, 2016, opposite parties illegally and unlawfully kept on deducting amount of Rs.513/- on monthly basis and accordingly opposite parties deducted Rs.11,799/- from the account of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service.

11.     On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties No.1,2 and 4 has argued that SBI Surakhsha Loan account meant for the payment of SBI Rinn Raksha Premium as on 31.08.2016 was Rs.8546/- which was required to be paid by the complainant in order to close the account and stop the further deduction of EMI of Rs.513/-. Since the complainant failed to deposit Rs.8546/- during the closure of home loan account and as such SBI Suraksha Account stood alive and accordingly EMI continued to be deducted. Even till today Rs.5747/- was outstanding payable by the complainant and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed.

12.     Counsel for the opposite party No.3 has argued that exept for premium of Rs.5361/- no extra amount has been received by the op.

13.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record. It is admitted fact that complainant availed term loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from opposite party No.2. It is further admitted fact that complainant had repaid the housing loan and the account was closed on 01.09.2016. The disputed issue for adjudication is whether opposite parties were justified in deducting Rs.513/- per month upto 28.02.2019. Perusal of statement of account shows that home loan was closed on 01.09.2016 and the opposite parties continued to deduct Rs.513/- per month till 28.02.2019 without any justification and the plea of opposite parties that Rs.8546/- was due from the complainant is not acceptable, as since the loan was closed on 01.09.2016 as such question of recovery of Rs.8546/- was not justified. More over the opposite party No.3 has already addmited that they have not received any such amount Except Rs.5361/-. Accordingly, act of the opposite parties of having deducted amount of Rs.513/- amounts to deficiency in service.

14.     Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties No.2 and 4 are directed to pay Rs.11,799/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Opposite parties No.2 and 4 are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and costs of litigation. Entire exercise shall be completed within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  

15.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

16.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                                                                               

            (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                                         President.   

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

Oct. 16, 2023                                                        Member.

*YP*