Hon'ble Mr. Subhas Ch. Guin, Member.
The fact of the instant case in a nutshell is that Mr. Pushpajit Chakraborty was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,40,000/- (One Lakh forty thousand only) by Central Bank of India, Haldibari Branch, Dist.- Cooch Behar under BSKP Scheme. But he could not pay the EMI in time and ultimately a compromise was held through One Time Settlement (OTS) in which Rs. 1,25,000/- was decided to be paid by the Complainant. Rs. 12,500/- was paid as down payment for the same by him and rest amount of Rs. 1,12,500/- had to be paid within 6 months. In pursuance to that compromise agreement he paid Rs. 1,05,000/- in time and rest Rs. 20,000/- was not paid due to some reason. After expiry of the stipulated period he tried to repay the sum of Rs. 20,000/- by depositing the same amount at the bank counter but OP bank refused to get the amount deposited on some pretext. On 03.03.2016 Complainant prayed before the Branch Manager of the concerned bank to let him know the exact amount of lying unpaid and deduct the same from his account.
Thereafter on 17.11.2016 O.P.-1 deducted Rs. 75,386/- from his Savings Bank Account No. 1966651210 without his consent for which the Complainant submitted an application to the O.P.-1 Bank on 05.12.2016 and the same was received by the O.P.-1 Bank but they did not respond to that effect. Again on 09.12.2016 the Complainant filed an application before O.P.-1 Bank to supply him a copy of OTS agreement to know the terms and conditions of the said agreement.
Again on 16.12.2016 O.P.-1 Bank deducted Rs. 54,849.49 from the savings Bank account of the Complainant without his consent. Then he sent a letter addressed to O.P.-2 to know the reason for deduction of amount in such a way without his knowledge or consent. But this time also O.P.-2 did not give any reply to that letter. On the contrary O.P.-1 Bank issued a loan clearance certificate in favour of the Complainant on 21.12.2016. Thus abovesaid act of deduction of amount from the Savings Bank Account of the Complainant put him in mental shock, pain and agony and finding no alternative he filed this complaint petition before this Commission for redressal of his grievance. He prayed for a direction to the OPs to pay him Rs. 1,10,235/- for monetary loss, business loss and illegal trade practice and Rs. 20,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment.
OP in his written version stated that the Complainant did not pay any amount towards repayment of the said loan which became Non Performing Asset (NPA) of the Bank. After One Time Settlement (OTS) with the Bank Rs. 1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand) only was decided to be paid by the Complainant for which Complainant deposited Rs. 12,500/- as down payment and Rs. 1,12,500/- had to be paid within six months. But the Complainant paid Rs. 1,05,000/- only within stipulated period after One Time Settlement. He tried to deposit the rest of the amount Rs. 20,000/- afterward/ Thus there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the OTS which was mentioned in written version of the OPs. In pursuance of the OTS, O.P.-1 deducted the outstanding balance of the Loan Account from the Savings Bank Account of the Complainant. At the same time the Complainant applied to the O.P.-1 Bank to know the outstanding balance and to deduct the same from his Account. So O.P.-1 defended the case to prove themselves liable in no way.
It is found from the case record that the OP contested the case by filing written version, adducing evidence and filing written argument. However, during final hearing the OP did not advance any argument. Accordingly, the matter was heard on the basis of the written argument of both the parties.
Points for consideration
- Is the case maintainable?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get relief?
All the points are taken up together for convenience and brevity of discussions as these points are interlinked with each other. Complainant was given a loan of Rs. 1,40,000/- by the O.P.-1 Bank for his business and he was not paying the EMI for the said loan in time for which he had to go for a compromise with the O.P.-1 through One Time Settlement (OTS). A sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- was decided to be paid by the Complainant with some terms and conditions in the OTS for which he deposited Rs. 12,500/- to the O.P.-1 Bank as down payment and rest Rs. 1,12,500/- had to be paid within 6 months by him. But due to violation of the terms and conditions of the OTS by the Complainant O.P.-1 Bank deducted Rs. 1,30235/- from his Savings Bank Account in two installments although Rs. 20,000/- was left to be paid at that time which prompted him to file this case for getting reliefs.
Notices were served upon the OPs. They contested the case by filing W/V, evidence on affidavit and written arguments. But in last few hearing OPs did not turn up for oral argument. OPs were given several chances to prefer any arguments but they did not do so. So the oral arguments were heard ex-parte against the OPs. The Complainant adduced both evidence on affidavit and written arguments and filed some documents to substantiate his case.
Ld. Lawyer for the Complainant argued that his client tried to deposit Rs. 20,000/- which was left unpaid but O.P.-1 Bank did not accept the same on some pretext.
Ld. Lawyer for the O.P.-1 stated in his written argument that Complainant cared little for repayment of the loan which caused it a Non Performing Asset (NPA). He also mentioned a few rules of the OTS which states as follows “That in case of failure of the terms and conditions of the Compromise Scheme, the status of the loan shall go back to the original position of the outstanding balance, prior to the compromise settlement having no effect on the compromise settlement made between the defaulting borrower and the bank and bank may initiate appropriate action for recovery of its entire dues”.
O.P.-1 Bank informed the Complainant by a letter dt. 25.04.2016 that his Compromise Settlement had been invalid from 01.04.2016 as per terms and conditions of the said settlement due to his failure to honour the terms and conditions of the same and bank was compelled to follow the rules of Compromise Settlement and duty bound to treat the loan account of the borrower as original status of the loan account and had taken necessary steps to realize the outstanding balance in the loan account of the Complainant.
Complainant filed some documents as evidence which does not support his claim. On the other hand O.P.-1 Bank adduced both evidence on affidavit and written argument which defied the arguments of the Complainant. Complainant was a defaulter in repayment of the loan. He took loan in the year 2006 and entered into a Compromise Settlement in the year 2015 when he was not paying the EMI of the loan regularly. After nine years his loan accumulated a huge sum of interest and became a Non Performing Asset (NPA). Due to One Time Settlement which Complainant entered into caused the O.P.-1 Bank a huge loss of money. Despite this Complainant did not honour the terms and conditions of the OTS and O.P-1 Bank was compelled to follow the rules of the OTS which empowered him to deduct the outstanding balance from the Savings Bank Account of the Complainant. At the same time at one point of time the Complainant wanted to know the outstanding balance of the loan from the Branch Manager of the concerned bank and requested him to deduct the same from his SB Account. So deduction of the outstanding balance is not a unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.-1 Bank. The act of O.P.-1 Bank is followed by the mandatory rules of the bank. Therefore, Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Thus, after assessing the evidence of both the parties, the Commission comes to the opinion that the Complainant failed to establish his claim with cogent and succinct evidence. In the result the Complaint case fails.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the Instant Case No. CC/42/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
