Hon'ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.
The case of the Complainant in a few words is that the Complainant Chanchal Kumar Chanda is an unemployed person. After training of “Pati Silpi”(craft) Office of the Development Commissioner Handicraft issued identity card and DIC granted loan which was sent to the OP, Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Dewanhat Branch, Cooch Behar. After full enquiry and satisfaction the OP sanctioned term loan of Rs. 5 Lakhs on 15.12.12 under the “Mudra Loan” scheme for 5 years with EMI of Rs.800/- per month with interest @ 10.7% per annum. As per terms and condition OP credited the loan amount in the Complainant S/B Account No.2266162997 on 15.12.15 for Rs.50,000/-. The Complainant paid EMI in loan account No.3506643050 @ Rs.800/- per month and OP started deducting the said Rs.800/- per month EMI. On 25.05.18 the Branch Manager informed the Complainant to come before the Office with original sanctioned letter and whimsically did pen through over the original sanction letter and put down new EMI of Rs.1080/- instead of Rs.800/- per month. The activities of the OP is totally illegal and gross negligence on the part of the OP Bank. Subsequently, the Complainant went to the Office of the OP and filed written complaint but the OP intentionally did not receive the same. Subsequently, the Complainant lodged written complaint through registered post on 11.12.18 but the OP did not reply to the same. Having found no alternative the Complainant took recourse of CA and FBP Department, Cooch Behar for mediation. The activities of the OP is an unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. The cause of action arose on 15.12.15 and on subsequent dates. Complainant therefore prayed for an award declaring that the EMI of Rs.800/- per month sanctioned by OP is correct, an order to the effect that the OP did not receive EMI of Rs.1080/-, Rs.40,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.
The OP appeared and contested the case by filing written version wherein they denied each and every allegation of the Complainant. The positive case of the OP in a few words is that the present complaint is not maintainable and barred by limitation. The Complainant was sanctioned term loan and the EMI was fixed @ Rs.1080/- which was executed by the borrower on 15.12.15. The loan was neither sponsored by any Govt. Department nor any subsidy amount is involved. So merely repayment of Rs.800/- per month for 5 years will arrive at Rs.48,000/- for repayment which is less than the principal amount of loan. Then it is a big question as to how the Complainant would repay the loan of Rs.50,000/- with outstanding interest. The Complainant borrower approached the OP Bank before the sanction of the loan with a copy of application form for financing under artisans credit card scheme (ACC) which was directly submitted by him to the OP Bank. No proposal was forwarded to the OP Bank from any Govt. Department. So no subsidy amount is involved.
The OP therefore claimed that the present case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the questions involved with the dispute in the instant case, the Commission considers it necessary to ascertain the following points for consideration.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether the present case is maintainable in its form and prayer?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1.
It is the admitted position that a loan was granted in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant alleged that there was an interpolation in the relevant documents against a sum of Rs.800/-(EMI). The OP did not mention in the written version as to under which provision the case is barred by any Law. However, the OP taken the plea that it is barred by limitation.
After perusing the case record it transpires that the Complainant lodged complaint lastly on 11.12.18 and subsequently the mediation before the CA and FBP Department was started on 24.01.19. The present case was filed on 21.10.19. The proceedings before the CA and FBP Department Cooch Behar was ended on 24.01.19. Accordingly the case is not barred by limitation.
However, the Ld. Lawyer for the OP could not advance any argument as to why the case is barred by limitation. Considering all aspects point No.1 is decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point No. 2 & 3.
Both the points No. 2 & 3 are very closely interlinked with each other. Accordingly these are taken up together for convenience and brevity of discussion.
The Complainant alleged that the OP Branch Manager of Central Bank of India, Dewanhat Branch, Cooch Behar interpolated over the sanction letter of loan Account in favour of the Complainant behind his back.
It is the admitted position that the term loan of the Complainant Chanchal Kumar Chanda was sanctioned under the product Mudra scheme for 5 years. The Complainant alleged that the EMI against the said loan was fixed @ Rs.800/- per month.
The Complainant in order to substantiate his claim filed some documents Annexure-A is the artisan photo identity card in the name of Chanchal Kumar Chanda, name of craft “Pati Silpi”.
Another document being application form for financer artisan with photograph in the name applicant Chanchal Kumar Chanda is also filed. The term loan agreement for small loan with non Judicial stamp paper is also filed to establish the claim by the Complainant.
Annexure-B is the loan sanction order dated 15.12.15 wherein it is clearly mentioned that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was sanctioned as term loan under Mudra loan for artisan which is repayable within 5 years commencing from January, 2016 with interest @ 10.7 % per annum. In the said document the EMI appears to be written as Rs.800/- which was struck out and beside the said column a sum of Rs.1080/- is written without any initial or counter signature of any Bank Officer or employee of the Bank.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant repeatedly argued on that issue with strong objection as to why it was pen through without the consent of the Complainant. He also argued that the said interpolation was done behind the back of the Complainant.
Ld. Advocate for the OP defended it in the same tune with the defence plea of the OP taken in the written version and evidence. Ld. Defence counsel argued that it is quite absurd to think that EMI of Rs.800/- would be sufficient to redeem the loan Rs.50,000/- in 60 instalments and as such it was rightly done. He also argued that it is not at all over writing but written at the time of executing of the agreement.
Perusal of the disputed document Annexure-B like sanction order dated 15.12.15 makes it crystal clear that over the writing of the EMI of Rs.800/- on the heading of the terms and condition, it was pen through and corrected as Rs.1080/-. The said amount of Rs.1080/- is not accompanied by any initial and signature of the concerned Branch Manager or responsible employee of the Bank. That being the State of Affairs, the Commission is of the view that the said amount of Rs.1080/- as EMI was written behind the back of the Complainant and not following the existing rules and regulation of executing a document. After execution of a document if it is corrected that should be accompanied by initial of the person executing the document leaving no room of doubt that the correction was done behind the back of any of the parties to the agreement.
It can be considered as not over writing but the previous amount of EMI was struck out and beside that the said sum of Rs.1080/- was written with a circle which is not accompanied by any initial or counter signature of the writer of the new amount. This over writing or inserting new words cannot be recognised in the eye of Law. Therefore it was done with some oblique motive which goes against the interest of the loanee being the Complainant of this case.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant also drew the attention of the Court with the help of pass book of the Complainant wherefrom it is found that a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been credited to the account of the Complainant. It is the money relating to term loan.
Another important feature which goes in favour of the Complainant is that the Complainant paid Rs.800/- as cash repayment on 18.08.18 and 19.09.18. The OP could not give any explanation as to how the said amount of Rs.800/- was credited on behalf of the OP Bank. Therefore the OP Bank is estopped from denying that the rate of EMI was finally fixed was Rs.800/- per month.
In order to strengthen the case of the Complainant proceedings before the CA and FBP has been filed wherefrom it is revealed that in second page of the proceedings it is noted inter alia that “Smt. Ankita Sing, Branch Manager of Central Bank of India appeared and stated that Mudra loan was issued on 15.12.15 for 60 instalments, EMI was inadvertently declared as Rs.800/- per month which was later found incorrect and it should be Rs.1080/- she said that they would waive penalty on the overdue but Complainant has to pay the instalment @ Rs.1080/- alongwith arrear".
After perusing the said document Annexure-F it is evident that the OP admitted that the said sum of Rs.800/-(EMI) was fixed on the basis of agreement of both the parties. If it is inadvertence that ought to have been brought to the notice of the Complainant and if it is required to be corrected that also ought to have been done by following the rules of correction or amendment of a document. It is well known rule which a Govt. or public servant should know that any document should be corrected in presence of all the parties related to the document and any other writing or correction or modification should be done with proper initial or signature of the executor of the document otherwise the said document is not valid in the eye of Law. Accordingly, the said correction of modification is clearly a mark of gross negligence for which it caused deficiency in service to the Complainant.
In the back drop of the aforesaid discussion and the observation made here in above the Commission is of the view that the OP Bank acted negligently in discharge of its function towards the Complainant which tantamounts to deficiency in service and mental pain and agony.
Compensation which should be granted actually comes within the perview of any other relief given to the Complainant. Accordingly issue No.2 & 3 are answered in favour of the Complainant.
Consequently, the complaint case succeeds.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No.CC/112/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The Complainant do get an award with declaration that EMI of Rs.800/- per month sanction by OP is correct and arrear on the basis of the said EMI is to be paid by the Complainant without any interest within one year from the date of passing this order and the EMI of Rs.1080/- as written in the sanction letter is not correct. The Complainant also do get an award for Rs.40,000/- as deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.
The OP Bank is directed to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of passing the award failing which the awarded sum will carry an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing the Final Order till the date of realization thereof. The OP Bank shall be entitled to recover the loan money on the basis of EMI of Rs.800/- from the Complainant as per Banking Laws without any interest on the excess of Rs.800/- as EMI.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by post forthwith, free of cost for information and necessary action, if any.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
