Orissa

Debagarh

CC/5/2021

Pramod Kumar Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Deogarh Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. S.Dehury

24 Jun 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEOGARH

C.C NO-05/2021

Pramod Kumar Pradhan, age 54 years,

S/O- Late Rabichandra Pradhan,

R/O-Ward No-1 ,Bhitiriasahi,

P.S/Dist-Deogarh.                                                                                 ...Complainant.

                                                                   Vrs.

1. The Branch Manager,

          Axis Bank,Deogarh Branch,

          At/PO/PS/Dist-Deogarh.

​      2. The Chief Manager,

          Axis Bank Plot No.1

          Nandighose Estate, Bapuji Nagar,

           Bhubaneswar-750119

1. For the Complainant       :-                     Self.
2. For the O.P-1&2             :-                     Sri K.B.Meher, Advocate & Associate.

 

DATE OF HEARING : 18.06.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 24.06.2021

SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:-Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant on dt 06.03.2019 has availed an Auto Loan from the O.P-1 amounting to Rs.4,50,000/- where the installment was fixed at Rs.11,284/- per month for 48 months. After payment of 19 installments the Complainant on dtd. 02.01.2019 deposited Rs.2,00,000/- in the loan account  but only Rs.1,88,857/- was credited to his loan account but rest of  Rs. 11,149/-had not credited. On asking the O.P-1, the Complainant came to know that the amount of Rs. 11,143/- has been adjusted towards the Foreclosure Charges to his loan account. Thereafter on dtd.23.11.2020 the Complainant sent a written complain to settle the disputes but till date it is unsolved. The Complainant has not yet received back the money in his account due to which he sustained financial loss, mental pain and agony due to Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice caused by the O.Ps. The Complainant has made the O.P-2 as a Party in this case as he is the superior officer/authority of the O.P-1.

But according to the O.P-1, this case is not maintainable in the eyes of Law and Facts and it is a Civil dispute in nature. The clause of the Loan Agreement entered in to

between the parties hereto clearly shows that the Hon’ble Commission has jurisdiction to try this case as per the Clause-17 of Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 or any statutory amendment thereof. The Complainant has taken loan amounting to Rs. 4,50,000/- from the O.P-1  vide Loan Agreement No- AUR030602426696 dtd. 15.05.2017 for purchase of a Mahindra CAT C/Bolero vehicle bearing No-OD-28-7401 after agreed upon all the terms and condition of the said Loan Agreement to repay the loan in 48 installments amounting to Rs.1,148/- per month starting from dtd. 10.06.2017 to dtd. 10.05 2021.  That on dtd. 02.01.2019 the Complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in his loan account  in shape of Cheque vide receipt no-1111. As per the repayment schedule the outstanding amount was Rs. 2,91,170/-. The Complainant alleged that the O.P has not credited the amount of Rs.11,143/-  to his account but the O.P-1 has adjusted the said amount towards Foreclosure Charges.  As the Complainant without intimating the Bank and without depositing the Foreclosure Charges deposited Rs.2,00,000/-  for Foreclosure of the Loan Account, the total outstanding dues piled to Rs.15,065/- accordingly. As the Complainant fails to pay the Foreclosure Chares the O.P adjusted the same from the deposit. Hence the O.P-1 claims that he has not committed any Deficiency in Service  or any unfair Trade Practice.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has availed a vehicle loan from the Bank of the O.P-1. On consideration of the matter of jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission to interfere in the cases relating to Arbitration and Conciliation , it is observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of M/S Emaar Mgf Land Limited vs Aftab Singh on 10 December, 2018 has given a verdict that “Arbitration Clause Cannot Oust The Jurisdiction Of Consumer Courts”. Again the Court added that "......Not only the proceedings of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are special proceedings which were required to be continued under the Act despite an arbitration agreement, there are large number of other fields where an arbitration agreement can neither stop or stultify the proceedings."

"......The complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act can also be proceeded with despite there being any arbitration agreement between the parties which have been well settled by the catena of decisions as noticed above."

Again when the Complainant became able to pay a lump sum amount towards the loan account he deposited the same to get rid of unnecessary interest burden. Again the Reserve Bank of India has issued a Circular on dt May 7, 2014 vide RBI/2013-14/582 DBOD, Dir.BC.No.110/13.03.00/2013-14 directing all the Scheduled Commercial Banks (Excluding RRBs) not to Levy of foreclosure charges/pre-payment penalty on Floating Rate Term Loans. Accordingly, it is advised that banks will not be permitted to charge foreclosure charges/ pre-payment penalties on all floating rate term loans sanctioned to individual borrowers, with immediate effect. But here the O.P-1 has deducted Rs11,143/- towards the foreclosure charges to close the loan account in spite of crediting the whole amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the loan account of the Complainant. Hence the O.Ps has Committed Deficiency in Service as well as Unfair Trade Practice and we order as under:-

ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P-1 is directed to return the amount of Rs.11,143/- which was illegally deducted from the account of the Complainant with 9% interest  per annum from the date of filing the complaint, i.e., dtd. 11.01.2021 till its realisation." The O.P-1 is further directed to pay Rs. 12,000/-(Rupees Twelve Thousand)as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) towards the cost of litigation. All the above orders are to be carried out within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.

Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 24^th  day of June-2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

I agree,                                                                                             

 

MEMBER.                                                                                          PRESIDENT.

                                                     Dictated and Corrected

                                                                   By me.

           

                                                                 PRESIDENT.