KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI

This is an appeal u/s41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, preferred against the judgement/final order dated 19/07/2023, passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in CC/70/2022.

Brief facts of the Appellant/Complainant’s case are that, as an Assistant School Teacher of Maharaja High School, she had applied for Gour House Repairing Loan (GHRL) from the Respondent/OP no.1 Branch, on 19/01/2007 and on 05/02/2007, the Respondents had sanctioned the loan of the Appellant/Complainant under GHRL loan proposal. After sanctioning the loan, the Respondents had opened the loan account being account no. GHRL/03/07. The Respondent no.1 accorded sanction of composite loan of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) only @ 9% pa, repayable in 180 EMI of Rs.4041/- (Rupees four thousand forty- one) only, from March 2007 till February 2022, as mentioned in the loan sanction letter. After the sanction of the loan the Appellant/Complainant had withdrawn Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) only and EMI fixed at Rs.4041/- (Rupees four thousand forty-one) only and started from March 2007, with auto deduction from her salary savings account, maintained in the Respondent no.1/Bank, being account no. 54430104247. Since the loan premium was auto deductible from her above account, for which reason the Appellant/Complainant carefully maintained sufficient amount, in her above account. The Appellant/Complainant surprisingly found that EMI amount had not been deducted from her account from Nov. 2007 to March 2008 and the Appellant/Complainant, made contact with the Respondent no.1/Bank and requested for information, the reason behind non-realization of the EMI by the bank from her salary account, despite having sufficient funds in her account. The Respondent no.1 failed to provide any information for such non-realization and assured the Appellant/Complainant non-realization of the EMI would be adjusted at the end without any interest and fine. After regularization of the EMI deduction procedure, the Appellant/Complainant found that despite having sufficient balance in her account the Respondent no.1 had not deducted the EMI of April, 2009, Oct. 2009 and Feb.2010. After regularization, the Respondent no 1/bank, had not deducted the EMI of Nov. 2011, resulting in non-realization of nine EMIs, due to negligence on the part of Respondents 1, 2 & 3. As per the sanction letter, the total of 180 EMIs deduction would result in the loan amount being completely repaid and till Sept. 2022, a total of 179 EMI had been deducted from her salary Savings A/c. The Appellant/Complainant also found that an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) only, had been deducted on 05/09/2022 from her salary by the Respondents without any prior intimation to her. The Appellant/Complainant met the Respondent no.1, in his office, for the explanation of deduction of the excess amount and who intimated, that the amount had been deducted, due to re-adjustment of the loan interest. Being not satisfied by the explanation of the Respondent no.1, the Appellant/Complainant filed a written application on 21/09/2022 for re-adjustment of the excess loan amount. The Appellant/Complainant also intimated the Respondent no.2 on 23/09/2022 for re-adjustment of the excess loan amount. The Appellant/Complainant being penalized by the Respondent no.1, for his deficiency of service and for which she filed this complaint with necessary prayers.
 The Respondents entered appearance by filing written version wherein they have stated that they were bound by Banking Regulations Act, 1949 with rules made thereunder including the Banking Companies (Nomination) Rules, 1985 and the Banker Book Evidence Act, 1891. They have also stated that the systems of the bank were operating under UNIX for servers and WINDOWS for client PC and banking application software was FINACLE 10.2.18 UNIVERSAL BANKING SOLUTION, which nobody including the Branch Manager could access the server, therefore, the story of manipulated deduction was baseless. The existence of the salaried account of the Appellant/Complainant was admitted, including the sanctioning of GOUR House Repair Loan on 05/02/2007 and effective from 21/02/2007 amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) only, with flexible rate of interest for the period of 180 instalments up to Feb.,2022 at 9 % p.a.,  due to subsequent increase and modification of the interest rate, under the direction of the RBI from time to time, the no. of instalments increased with the pre-fixed monthly installment amounts, as per instruction given to the bank by the borrower. In spite of increase of interest rate the borrower declined to increase the initial pre-authorized fixed installment amount, as a result the instalment period increased beyond Feb. 2022, leading to overdue and in consecutive three months overdue and the failure to regularize the said loan the Appellant/Complainant’s loan account became NPA, under the Rules framed by the RBI, on 23/08/2022. The formal letter of intimation was issued on 21/07/2022 regarding ultimatum of NPA and after mandatory declaration of the NPA issued another letter dated 31/08/2022 for probable outcome of NPA including reminder of recovery as per terms and conditions and for such the OP Banks was able to adjust Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) only from the salary account, were still Rs.1,37,529.05 (Rupees one lakh thirty-seven thousand five hundred twenty-nine point zero five paise) only was overdue up to 05/09/2022 and was still continuing to increase and the present outstanding balance on 31/01/2023 was 1,17,324.05 (Rupees one lakh seventeen thousand three hundred twenty-four point zero five paise) only plus further interest accrued since 04/08/2022 till realization of the loan amount. The GOUR Gramin Bank had become Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank after the merger of five nos. of RRB and the said loan account had changed to Bangiya Griha Sannrakhan Yojana and the interest rate has changed from 9% p.a. to 12% p.a. It was further prayed that the case be dismissed.

After going through the evidence and materials on record, the Ld. DCDRC, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur passed the impugned order dismissing the case.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order the Appellant/Complainant, preferred this instant appeal on the ground that the Ld. DCDRC, Raiganj, erred in law and facts while passing the impugned order.

                                                                        Decisions with Reasons

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/Complainant, at the time of final hearing, had assailed the impugned judgement, on the ground that though the loan had been granted with the fixed EMI of Rs.4401/- (Rupees four thousand four hundred one) only and @ 9% p.a., with the merger of the GOUR Gramin Bank the account was changed to Bangiya Griha Sannrakhan Yojana and the interest rate arbitrarily changed from 9% p.a. to 12% p.a. with the Appellant/Complainant being kept in dark. He had relied in the RBI Circular DBOD.Leg.No.BC. 104/09.07.007/2002-03 dated May 5, 2003 wherein in no. (iii) Disbursement of loans including changes in terms and conditions: Lenders should ensure timely disbursement of loans sanctioned in conformity with the terms and conditions governing such sanction. Lender should give notice of any change in the terms and conditions including interest rates, service charges etc. Lenders should also ensure that changes in interest rates and charges are effected only prospectively.

He had also relied in the judgement passed in Vishnu Bansal Vs. ICICI Bank passed by the Hon’ble Delhi SCDRC on 11/05/2021. He therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned judgement.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondents, on the other hand had argued that the OPs had made it clear that the subsequent increase and modification of the interest rate on the directives of the RBI, the nos. of instalments would increase and in spite of the EMI increasing to Rs.5177/- (Rupees five thousand one hundred seventy-seven) only, the Appellant/Bank declined to increase the initial pre-authorized fixed instalment amount following which the nos. of instalments increased beyond Feb. 2022, leading to overdue and on failure to regularize the account by the Appellant/Complainant the account became NPA. In spite of service of intimation, the Appellant/Complainant failed to regularize the loan account which resulted in the loan account being NPA. The OPs could only adjust Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) only from her salary account where still Rs.1,37,529.05 (Rupees one lakh thirty-seven thousand five hundred twenty-nine point zero five paise) only, became overdue up to 05/09/2022 and non-payment made it increasing day by day. Moreover, the Appellant/Complainant had overlooked the Banking Ombudsmen Scheme, 2006. The Appellant/Complainant instead of clearing the overdue amount issued a letter to the Respondent no.1, not to deduct any further amount from her salary account. He had relied in the judgement passed in ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Maharaj Krishan Datta & Ors. by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 Law Suit (SC) 1027, in Syndicate Bank Ltd. Vs. R. Veeranna by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2002 Law Suit (SC) 1257 and in Vishnu Bansal Vs. ICICI Bank passed by the Hon’ble Delhi SCDRC on 11/05/2021.

The facts of the case are more or less undisputed. The main point of dispute is with regard to the withdrawal of 1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) only on 05/09/2022 by the OPs. In this regard, there is no explanation forthcoming from the OPs’ side as to why such withdrawal was necessitated or as to how this amount had accumulated when the EMIs of the Appellant/Complainant was being regularly withdrawn by the OPs from the salary account. On the other hand, the Appellant/Complainant’s allegation that the monthly EMI of her loan account had not been deducted from her salary account from the months of Nov. 2007 to March 2008 in spite of having sufficient balance stands corroborated by the copy of the pass-book on pages 56 and 57 of the Appeal Memo as well as for the months of April 2009, Oct. 2009, Feb.2010 and Nov.2011 depicted in copy of the pass-book on pages 61, 62 & 31. There is no explanation forthcoming from the OPs’ side as to why the above-mentioned amount were not deducted from her salary account in spite of the account showing sufficient balance. Hence, when the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) only, was deducted on 05/09/2022, is not satisfactorily explained. The method adopted by the OPs appears to be unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, provided to the Complainant. It is a fact that the OPs are bound by the RBI Regulations and consequently to the Appellant/Complainant. But, the change of interest as prescribed by the RBI Regulations ought to be imposed on and from the date of such change in interest. Instalments are preferred by the consumers of the bank to avoid the burden of repaying the debt within a short period and therefore when the instalments are preferred at the cost of having to repay more of the debt amount, the decision on the part of the OPs to withdraw 1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) only on 05/09/2022, without providing any explanation of doing so reeks of arbitrariness, which is not only unacceptable, but also defeats the intention behind preferring instalments. Under the circumstance, this violation of the Appellant/Consumer’s right to repay the loan amount in instalments, cannot be tolerated. The Appellant/Complainant having repaid 171 instalments @ Rs.4041/- (Rupees four thousand forty-one) only and the OPs are entitled to further nine instalments @ Rs.4041/- (Rupees four thousand forty-one) only. The OPs are therefore directed to return Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) only after deducting nine instalments @ 4041/- (Rupees four thousand forty-one) only. The OPs are also injuncted from recovering any other dues in connection with the loan account of the Appellant/Complainant. As a result, the instant appeal succeeds.

                                                                   It is therefore

                                                                   ORDERED

That the instant appeal be and the same is allowed on contest, but without cost.

The impugned order is hereby set aside.

The Respondents are jointly and severally are directed to comply with the directions made in the body of the judgement and also to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only as compensation for her mental pain and agony and to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only towards litigation cost, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of this order.

Copy of the judgement be sent to the parties free of cost.

Copy of the judgement be sent to the Ld. DCDRC, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur for necessary information.