IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

             CASE No.  CC/81/2016.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

    24.05.16                                       02.06.16                                  02.04.19

Complainant: Smt. Indra Sre Guchhiat (Pramanik)

                        W/o Sri. Debasis Pramanik

                        Goaljan, PO- Goaljan PS-Berhampore

                        Dist-Murshidabad,

Pin-742187

-Vs-

Opposite Party: The Branch Manager,

Allahabad Bank, Sagardighi,

 Vill&PO-Sagardighi,

Dist-Murshidabad,

 Pin-742226

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant            : Sri. Subhransu Singha.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party         : Smt. Sampa Roy.

                       Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                              

                                          Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

 Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay, Member.

  This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            One Smt. Indra Sre Guchhiat (Pramanik) (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Sagardighi (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

   The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:

            The Complainant applied for house loan from the O P Bank after observing the due formalities, the O P had sanctioned vide their letter dated 22.06.13 an amount of  Rs.15,0,000/-. As per agreement the  Complainant paid regularly the monthly instalments of Rs.16,304/- which  was  deducted from the Bank account of the Complainant lying with the O P Bank as per her instruction. But all of a sudden on 16.10.15 the Complainant noticed that Rs.17,000/- has been debited on adjustment to BALTRF to Universal. So she made contact with the O P and asked the reason for such deduction. The OP stated that it is an insurance coverage for the mortgage property. The Complainant also had a life insurance policy of Tata AIA amounting Rs.22,240.50/- with service tax of Rs.2,748.93/- totaling Rs.24989.43/-. So she never asked for any other insurance policy. The Complainant sent advocate notice for adjustment of the amount deducted for insurance without her consent but no result yield. The Complainant filed instant case before this Forum for appropriate relief.

            The OP after due service of the notice filed the written version, contending inter alia that the complaint is barred by limitation and the loan is covered under two insurance policies namely, Griho Mongal insurance policy and asset insurance policy. As per extend insurance policy guideline of the Bank, to cover the asset portfolio of the bank O P insured the mortgage property of the complainant  and the same has been informed to the Complainant several times over telephone and letters and the Complainant has received the original insurance certificate from the insurance company and the sanction letter given to the Complainant clearly reveals that the mortgaged property must be insured against the natural calamities such as fire, earthquake for this reason such insurance must be kept along with the title deeds. So, no wrong has been made by the OP Bank and as such the case is liable to be dismissed.

   Now the question arises whether the Complainant is a consumer and he is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

 Decision with reason

            Admittedly, the Complainant applied for the loan from the O P Bank on 12.06.13 and same has been sanctioned by the O P vide letter dated 22.06.13 to the extent of Rs. 15,0,000/-. So the complainant became customer of the O P Bank and the bank became the service provider and as such the complainant steps as a consumer. As per terms and conditions, the Complainant paid the instalments amounting of Rs.16,304/- in each and every months. The O P in the written statement has admitted that an amount of Rs.17,100/- has been debited from the account of the Complainant for the reason of insurance coverage.

            It is also evident from the petition of complaint  that the O P has not informed the Complainant about the insurance policy rather O P stated in the written version that it is not possible for the Bank to inform all the customer individually in all such things though these  are well in-corporate in the sanction letter in terms and condition clause.The O P also stated in the W/V that major changes in the policy matter, sanction terms are used to well display on the Notice Board of the Bank and the Complainant`s loan was covered under two insurance policies namely Griho Mongal insurance policy (for covering the outstanding loan for case of any mishap of borrowers) and asset insurance policy ( for covering the outstanding loan in case of mishap of asset) as per extent insurance policy guidelines of the Bank and to cover the asset portfolio of the Bank, the deduction of Rs.17,100/- from the loan account was informed to the Complainant over telephone and through circular of the Bank. Considering facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed by the parties and argument advance by the Ld. Advocate of both sides, we are of the opinion that there is also deficiency in service on the part of the O P by deducting the amount of Rs.17,100/- from the account of the Complainant without the information and without taking any consent for the insurance policy and no consent letter has been produced before us for consideration. So, the Complainant is entitled to get relief.

Reasons for delay

         The Case was filed on 24.05.16 and admitted on 02.06.16. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day order.

In the result, the Consumer case succeeds.

Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

                                      Ordered

that the complaint Case No.CC/81/2016 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against  the OP with cost.

         The OP is directed to refund an amount Rs.17,100/- in the account of the Complainant lying with the OP Bank. The OP is further directed to pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- and a compensation of Rs.1,000/- for mental pain and agony.

         All such order must be complied within 30 days from the date of this order.

            Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

          Member

  Member                                                                                                   President.