DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 530 of 18-11-2010 Decided on : 27-05-2011
Amrik Singh aged about 50 years S/o Dalip Singh, R/o Village Kalyan Sukha, District Bathinda. .... Complainant Versus
The Bathinda Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Branch Kalyan Sukha through its Branch Manager ..... Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sukhdev Mittal, counsel for the opposite party.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The complainant approached the opposite party for getting loan of Rs. 25,000/-. He full-filled all the conditions as per requirement of the opposite party and got Rs. 20,000/- loan amount instead of Rs. 25,000/- in the presence of guarantor. The opposite party did not issue the pass book or account number to the complainant. The complainant paid all the installments and the last payment of Rs. 2,000/- was made on 20-10-2010. The opposite party now stopped to get the installments and threatened the complainant to deposit the total amount. The complainant alongwith panchyat approached the opposite party and requested him to get the amount of loan deposited in installments but he was adamant to get the full amount deposited. The panchyat confirmed about the balance payment and it came to notice from the pass book which was with the opposite party that there was balance of Rs. 19,493/- on account of wrong entries made by the opposite party. Interest of Rs. 8010/- has been charged from 10-08-2010 to 31-03-2011 which is against rules as no interest can be charged in advance. It came to the notice of the complainant for the first time that the opposite party incorporated the entry of Rs. 25,000/- whereas the complainant got only Rs. 20,000/- in cash in the presence of guarantor Gurdial Singh. The complainant alleged that the opposite party intentionally retained the pass book so that the truth may not come to the notice of the complainant and opposite party was incorporating the entries in the pass book according to their suitability. The complainant made repeated requests to the opposite party either to refund or to adjust the amount of Rs. 5,000/- but to no effect. Hence, this complaint has been filed by the complainant. The opposite party filed his written reply and pleaded that complainant applied for loan of Rs. 25,000/- in the year 2005 which was sanctioned and advanced to him on 16-12-2005. He received the amount of Rs. 25,000/- from his account No. 1692 vide voucher dated 16-12-2005. The complainant did not adhere to the financial schedule of repayment of the bank and the installments were due from January, 2006 and so the account was transferred to NPA account and the complainant deposited some amount in that account which was duly accounted for. Now a sum of Rs. 19,493/- is due and recoverable from the complainant. The pass book was issued there and then. Parties have led evidence in support of their pleadings. Parties have led evidence in support of their pleadings. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The allegation of the complainant is that a loan amount of Rs. 25,000/- was sanctioned to him but the opposite party paid only Rs. 20,000/-. To prove this version, the complainant has produced nothing on file. On the other hand, the opposite party has produced on file a copy of self voucher, transfer voucher and statement of account Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-3 respectively which show that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was advanced to the complainant on 16-12-2005 being loan which was to be paid in 60 monthly installments of Rs. 600/- each. The opposite party has pleaded that complainant did not pay the loan installments regularly and hence, penal interest was charged on recoverable amount. A perusal of statements produced on record reveals that opposite party has charged interest on installments which were to be paid by the complainant in the next coming months. To prove, his version, the opposite party has not produced any document/rule on the basis of which he has charged penal interest on future installments which were remaining to be paid by the complainant. The opposite party has levied interest on the future installments of the complainant without intimating him. He has not even wrote a single letter to the complainant intimating him in advance to deposit the due installments otherwise interest will be levied on his due amount and his account will be transferred to NPA account. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as he kept on adding the interest in the account of the complainant without giving any information/intimation to him as per his own sweet will. In the result, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 500/- as cost and compensation. The opposite parties are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant and charge the remaining principal due amount in installments @Rs. 600/- per month from the complainant and provide him complete account statement. In case of non-payment of due installment by the complainant, the opposite party may charge interest as per agreement executed between the complainant and the opposite party bank with due intimation to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.
Pronounced 27-05-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
