Date of Filing: 21-05-2013 Date of Final Order: 29-09-2014
Complainant Sri Jaydev Sarkar, Asst. Teacher, Tufanganj Vivekananda Vidyalaya have filed the present case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as consumer, praying for issuing a direction upon the Opposite Parties to pay the Complainants (1) An order to clear the rest loan amount without interest, (2) Rs.50,000/- for unfair trade practice & deficiency in service, (3) Rs.50,000/- as compensation, (4) Rs.50,000/- for harassment, mental pain, agony & sufferings and (5) Cost of the proceeding i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- in total, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
The fact of the case in gist as can be gathered from the record is that the Complainant Sri Jaydev Sarkar took a personal loan amounting of Rs.1,00,000/- from the O.P i.e. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Tufanganj Branch for his financial help and ultimately the O.P after completion of all formalities sanctioned the said loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 12-11-2008 in the Loan Account No.01967115766 and on the terms & condition of the loan agreement that the complainant have to clear the loan amount by monthly payment of EMI amounting of Rs.1,600/-. Thereafter, the complainant paid his first EMI Rs. 1,600/- on 23-02-2008, in such way the complainant paid total 49 EMI’s.
Afterwards, the O.P bank informed to the complainant that as per loan agreement the loan amount was to be recovered fully in 48 EMI’s and it was too had to be of Rs.2,800/- per EMI instead of Rs.1,600/- per EMI and also express that due to their mistake such wrong calculation has occurred. In such situation the complainant has been directed by the O.P bank authority to bear more interest amount than what he was supposed to be paid. Subsequently, the O.P bank authority sent a letter to the complainant and mentioned that a huge amount is till due which have to clear up within a short period with interest up to date by the complainant. After that the complainant has sent two letters to the O.P bank about their clarifications regarding the above mentioned issue. After several meetings with the Branch Manager of the O.P bank, the O.P bank authority finally response to the complainant by a letter but the content is unclear and the matter has remained unexplained. Furthermore, the O.P bank also informed to the complainant that they are unable to do anything and he have to clear up the rest loan amount within a short period with interest up to date. Thus the complainant suffering from mental pain, agony and unnecessary harassment and also suffering from such negligence, deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice by the O.P and finding no other alternative, the complainant filed the present case seeking redress intending to get relief(s) with compensation and cost.
The instant complaint has been filed for Rs.1,50,000/- along with Xerox copies of supporting documents, Petition etc. and I.P.Os. of Rs. 100/- deposited and the complaint was registered as DF-39/2013.
In the case in hand the sole O.P after receiving the notice from this Forum appeared through Ld. Agent and contesting the case contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable before this Forum. The main contention of O.P. is that the Complainant had taken loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the Opposite Party on 12.11.2008 but in complaint petition the Complainant express that the Complainant deposited first EMI on 23.02.2008 which is impossible. It is admitted fact that the Complainant had taken loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- but the real fact of the dispute is that the Complainant also took loan of Rs. 60,000/- had an EMI of Rs.1,600/- prior to this date, i.e. on 22.07.2008 with 13.75% interest from the Opposite Party, which was to be paid in 48 installments. Thus, the loan which was of Rs.-1,00,000/- had an EMI of Rs. 2,800/- and the Complainant without taking the fact in consideration went on paying an installment of Rs.1,600/- which is much less than the one he ought to paid i.e. Rs.2,800/-. At the time of taking said loan the Complainant knows very well the exact EMI against Rs. 60,000 & Rs. 1,00,000/- as the Complainant has executed in his hand writing one Demand Promissory Note. The Complainant consciously continued to pay EMI of Rs. 1,600/- instead of Rs. 2,800/- for which a huge amount has fallen due from the Complainant.
Putting all the above averments this O.P stated that this Opposite Party has no deficiency in Service, moreover, the Complainant has filed this fabricated case willfully which is liable to be dismissed with cost.
In the light of the contention of both parties the following moot points are necessarily came out for consideration to reach a just decision.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer of O.Ps as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the Opposite Party any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and is the opposite party liable in any way to compensate the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully and also perused entire Xeroxed/original documents in the record and heard argument of the both parties.
Point No.1.
The Complainant took personal loan from the O.P and having an account bearing Loan Account No. 01967115766 lying with the O.P Bank. The Bank is an institution to provide service to its consumer and thus, the relation of the Complainant with the O.P. Bank as came to be existed from the materials made available in the record we have no hesitation to say that the Complainant is the Consumer of the O.Ps and thus, this case is maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
Point No.2.
The O.P. Bank in the present case is situated in this district and also this complaint valued at Rs. 1,50,000/- i.e. within prescribed limit as per C.P. Act, 1986 for which there is no dispute in the point of territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction.
Point No. 3 & 4.
It is the case of the Complainant that he took personal loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the Opposite Party bank and he paid total 49 EMI of Rs. 1,600/- but after completion of all EMIs the opposite Party demanded a huge amount has fallen due in connection of the said loan. On the other hand the ld. Agent of the O.P. Bank vehemently argued that the Complainant took loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- promised to repay said loan in 48 installment of Rs. 2,800/- but the Complainant paid the EMI of Rs. 1,600/- instead of Rs. 2,800/- for which the dispute as alleged by the Complainant is cropped up. The other contention of the O.P. is that previously the Complainant also had taken loan of Rs. 60,000/- and then the EMI was Rs. 1,600/-.
On perusal the materials made available in the record it appears that the Complainant took personal Loan from the O.P. bank of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 12.11.2008. The Complainant also took loan of Rs. 60,000/- on 22.07.2008 but in the complaint petition there is no whispering as to the said loan. Thus, the Complainant suppressed the material fact before this Forum. Moreover, the Complainant in Complaint petition as well as in the Evidence on affidavit clearly stated that he took the loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the terms and condition to pay the loan on 48 equal installments of Rs. 1600/- but the Complainant failed to produce any cogent document in this regard. In Evidence on affidavit of the Complainant there is also no whispering about the loan of Rs. 60,000/. In the Written Argument the Complainant admitted the fact that he took loan of Rs, 60,000/- from the O.P. Bank. It is general prudence that the EMI of loan amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and loan amount of Rs. 60,000/- will not be the same. The Complainant also stated that due to wrong calculation of the O.P. he used to pay Rs. 1600/- EMI but the Complainant failed to prove his case by producing authenticated document. Only Annexure 1 shows that the O.P Bank sends a letter to the Complainant on 20.04.2013 wherein the Senior Manager admitted that due to a huge gap between the Complainant and O.P. the dispute cropped up. Be that as it may, when the Complainant very much concerned about the dispute, which is crystal clear from Annexure 2, it was his duty to contact with the B.M. of the said Bank and to repay the loan in actual EMI against his total loan amount. But the Complainant remained silent and continued to pay EMI of Rs. 1,600/- instead of Rs. 2,800/- and made contact with the O.P by the letter dated 09.03.2013 after payment of 49 installments. Moreover, the complainant is a well-educated schoolteacher thus; it is reasonably be presume that he is much more aware about the banking loan system, the procedure as to the repayment of loan etc. Thus, it is crystal clear that even after knowledge of the dispute he intentionally only to harass the O.P. bank, played in such a way.
Besides, the O.P Bank has filed some account statement Annexure “I” from which it appears that on 12.11.2008 an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been credited in the account of the Complainant and after that he paid installments of Rs. 1,600/- like previous months. It is also clear picture that by payment of EMI of Rs. 1,600/-, the loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest in 48 installments is not possible to clear. Against loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest 13.75% the EMI stands to Rs.2,800/- in 48 installments. The bank enrolled the public money and the dues from the Complainant cannot be considered as in banking business such loss also cannot be entertained.
In the light of the foregoing discussion and on perusal the record we are constrained to hold our considered opinion that there is no deficiency from the part of the O.P. Bank. The Complainant himself invited his own misery by suppressing the actual fact and did not disclose the same before the bank in due time.
Thus, the Complaint fails.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The Case No. DF-39/2013 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No cost.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
