This complaint is filed by the Complainant U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (as amended up to date) alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the O.P as the O.P did not take any step to redress his grievance till filing of this complaint.
The complainant’s case in brief is as follows, (Stated by the complainant in complaint petition) “That the O.P. is the banker of the complainant from where the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.2,50000/-on 10/03/2020 vide MB Sanchary Account number 50150018254409. (Annexure :1:Copy of the relevant pages of the passbook of the complainant) That it is found from the Pass Book of the complaint that on 10/03/2020 and twice on 11/03/2020 amount of Rs.50,000/-,Rs.1,00,000/-and Rs.1,00,000/- has been withdrawn in the name of one Dulal Roy. (Annexure:2:Copy of the relevant page of the Statement of Account of the complainant) . That husband of the complainant passed away on 04/04/2020. (Annexure:3 :Copy of Death Certificate of Dhirendra Nath Sarkar) · That from the entries in the Statement of in the Pass Book of the complainant it is also found that an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- has been deposited in the account of the complainant to was satisfaction of the claim of Insurance. (Refer:Annexure:2). The complainant says that subsequently on 20/05/2022 and amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant towards EMI of the loan and the rest was kept as frozen balance. That the complainant on 13/06/2022, through Ld. Advocate on her behalf sent a Notice to the O.P. by registered post asking for supply of the details of withdrawal from the account of the complainant and also for an elucidation of the transactions made in the account of the complainant by Dulal Roy. (Annexure :3 : Copy of Notice sent to the O.P. through Ld.Advocate on behalf of the complainant) .That the complainant says that although the loan was advanced in the name of the complainant but not a single farthing was withdrawn by the complainant from the said account and as such the same should have remained intact in the account of the complainant. To the utter surprise of the complainant, some Dulal Roy, without the consent of the complainant has withdrawn the entire loan amount and the O.P. had been trying to deduct the entire amount of Insurance. (Annexure:4:Copy of Reply sent by the O.P. along with documents enclosed).That the complainant thereafter requested the O.P. several times correct the entries on the Account of the complainant and reverse the amount siphoned thereof, but to no avail. That finding no other alternative the complainant approached the Assistant Director, Directorate of Consumer Affairs and Fair Businesses Practices, Regional Office, Jalpaiguri with her grievances and the complainant was directed to approach the DCDRC, Jalpaiguri for redress. That the complainant is still longing for the adjustment of the amount and has been running behind the O.P. which has been causing enormous pain and agony to the complainant and a lot of harassment which if quantified in terms of money surpasses the value of the loan which tantamount to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. and thus finding no other alternative the complainant has filed the present complaint for redress. That the cause of action for filing the present complaint lastly arose on 24/06/2022 when the reply from the O.P. was received by the complainant and the same is still continuing within the jurisdiction of this Forum. This Forum has jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present complaint.”
Complainant prays before this commission for proper adjudication of the case and claims relief as under:
- Direction to the O.P.to initiate process correct the entries on the Account of the complainant and reverse the amount siphoned thereof which amounts to an aggregate of Rs.5,00,000/- (Loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and Insurance amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.
- Direction to the O.P. to pay compensation to the complainant the amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the harassment caused, mental agony and pain suffered by the complainant;
- Direction to the O.P. to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.20,000/-towards the cost of the present litigation;
- Direction to the O.P.to pay to the complainant the interest accrued on the awarded amount @ 12% calculated P.A.from the date of cause of action till actual realization;
- Any other relief, the Hon'ble commission further pleased to award.
- Total Claim:Rs.5,70,000/-
The Opposite Party did not appear to contest the case in spite of service of summon, hence the case was heard ex-parte against them. On dated 06/01/2023 O.P received the notice from this commission and on dated 02/03/2023, order no-04, we fix the case for ex-parte hearing. The upper mentioned fact is enough to prove that the opposite party is totally known about the facts of the case and they desperately avoid the proceedings of this commission.
Points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P. Act 2019?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant is entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for?
All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision.
Decisions with reasons
Complainant is a consumer of the O.P. The complainant has both the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction for filing the case before this commission.
According to the case record the husband of the complainant Late. Dhirendra Natha Sarkar jointly with the complainant took the loan (MB Sanchary, Account number- 50150018254409) dated 10/03/2020. According to the annexure -4 supplied by the complainant, this document is basically the reply (Dated 24/06/2022) of the advocate notice send to the O.P bank by the complainant on 13/06/2022. From that version of the O.P it reflects that surrounded by the alleged loan the complainant also purchase an insurance policy mandatorily from HDFC LIFE which was basically meant for collateral security against the said loan. After receiving the death information the O.P bank initiate the death insurance claim from HDFE LIFE. On dated 20/05/2022 the O.P received the death insurance claim of deceased Dhirendra Nath Sarkar from HDFC LIFE in the account of the complainant Minu Sarkar (Account number- 50150018254409). That amount was auto debited to the joint loan account of the complainant. O.P deducted the entire loan overdue from the money as on that date. The complaint was totally unknown about the activities or initiative taken by the O.P. bank and also denied about the upper mentioned facts.
On dated 26/03/2023 the complainant was physically present in this commission and she stated that after taking the loan from the O.P bank the corona pandemic was started. Few days later the husband of the complainant became ill and was admitted at hospital and after a long treatment on 04/04/2022 her husband was died. Complainant also submits a photocopy of the death certificate. The complainant duly intimated the death information of her husband to the O.P.
The O.P Bank also consciously stay away from the proceedings of this commission after receiving the notice in due time.
- The O.P bank never mentions that they inform/notify the complainant about the proceedings.
- No loan agreement paper was supplied by the O.P bank.
- No information about the collateral security against the said loan.
- No information about why the O.P bank adjust the death insurance claim Rs.2.50.000/-
The loan was taken on (MB Sanchary, Account number- 50150018254409) dated 10/03/2020. After that corona pandemic was started. Several restrictions were imposed. Even the honorable Supreme Court graciously extended the limitation period for filing cases till 28/02/2022, but these banks are waiting to recover their loan overdue by adopting any means or path. It is understandable from the case record that the complainant took the loan from the O.P bank, but the repayments of loan EMI, Loan EMI Moratorium due to covid pandemic, adjustment of death insurance claim in overdue loan account and all that are confusing due to the non appearance of the O.P bank.
From the upper mentioned facts and circumstances it is clear that the complainant had suffered mental pain and agony and financial loss by the unfair trade practice, deficiency of service of the opposite party. Complainant is partly succeeded to prove his case and the complement should be partly compensated by the opposite party.
In view of the aforementioned discussions, we are of the view that the complainant is partly entitled to get relief/reliefs as per Consumer Protection Act and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. Thus, the consumer case is partly allowed on ex- parte against the O.P with cost.
Hence it is therefore,
O R D E R E D
The case CC/101/2022 is allowed ex-parte against the O.P. O.P is directed to refund Rs. 2.50.000/- (Two lakh Fifty thousand) to the complainant with Rs. 20,000/- as compensations for mental pain and agony, deficiency of service, adoption of unfair trade practice and litigation cost to the complainant within one month of this order, in default, the total awarded amount (Rs.2.70.000/-) shall carrying interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order.
O.P. is to pay Rs. 20,000/-(twenty thousand only) to the consumer legal aid account of this commission.
Complainant is at liberty to execute the decree according to law.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
