Hon’ble Mr. Subhas Ch. Guin, Member.
The concise fact of the complaint petition is that the Complainant, Mr. Saibal Sarkar who was a resident of Village- Sadiyaler Kuthi P.O. Chowdharihat, P.S. Dinhata Dist:- Cooch Behar was a bonafide consumer of Central Bank of India, Chowdharihat Branch, P.O. Chowdharihat, Dist: Cooch Behar (OP). The OP bank sanctioned two loans, one cash credit loan having A/C No:- 2246930431 and one House Building Loan (in short HBL) having A/C No.2246939660 in favour of the Complainant in the year 2003 and 2004 respectively. At the time of taking the aforesaid loans, the OP took (8) eight LIC Policy Bonds (Bearing No. 451082591, 451094604, 453271349, 452518247, 453286403, 453290088, 451083602 and 423416885) from the Complainant along with the title deeds and Khatian etc. for loan mortgage as documents. The OP not only made the Complainant sign on some printed form and blank non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 10/- and Rs. 50/- but made him sign on blank white papers also for sanctioning the said loans. Being a simple man having no Knowledge of English language, he was told by the OP that those were formalities and signatures on the papers of loan agreement. The Complainant had been making repayment of the cash credit loan as per norms of the bank and after sanction of the HBL he was making payment of EMI amounting to Rs.8,000/- consecutively. But due to downward trend of the business during Covid-19 pandemic the Complainant could not pay the EMI in due time which turned the Complainant’s loan accounts into non-performing asset (in short NPA). Subsequently, the OP bank issued a letter dated 29.10.21 in respect of non-discretionary/ non-discriminatory(NDND) special OTS scheme 2021-22 for one time settlement (in short OTS) of NPAs and Technical Write Off / Prudential Write off accounts A/C No:- 2246939660. The letter revealed that Central Bank of India has come out NDND special OTS scheme 2021-22 for one time settlement of NPAs. In this connection, we would like to advice you that your dues to the bank are eligible for settlement under the said scheme on the following terms and conditions.
(i) Contractual Amount due as on 31-03-21: Rs. 931258/.
(ii) OTS offer Amount: Re 6,40,000/-.
(iii) Application for OTS will be processed only on deposit of minimum 50% of the OTS amount.
(iv)The remaining amount has to be paid within 30 days of the sanction of the OTS.
(v) If 10% of the OTS amount (including 5% remitted upfront) is paid within 30 days from the date of sanction of OTS, the remaining amount can be paid within six months, in monthly installments from the date of sanction of OTS (the validity period) together with interest @ lY MCLR on reducing balance basis effective from the date of sanction of the OTS, failing which the OTS amount has to be paid within three months of sanction.
(vi) However, no interest will be charged if the entire OTS amount is paid within one month from the date sanction of OTS.
(vii) Failing to repay the entire amount within the stipulated time period as above will render the OTS infructuous and therefore amount paid under the OTS if any will not be refunded.
Finding no other alternative, the Complainant adopted the aforesaid scheme which was offered by the OP bank on 29-10-21 and deposited the following amounts in the said OP bank as per OTS scheme for which he had to sell his own land for repayment of the loan by availing himself of the said scheme.
Date Deposited amount
a) 29-10-21 Rs.30,000/-
b) 01-11-21 Rs.35,000/-
c) 24-11-21 Rs.1,45,000/-
d) 07-12-21 Rs.10,000/-
e) 21-12-21 Rs.13,000/-
Total Amount Rs. 2,45,000/-
That after depositing Rs. 2,45,000/- out of Rs. 6,40,000/- the Complainant collected statement of account of the said HBL from the OP bank which revealed that the dates of deposition in account statement deffered from the actual dates in pay-in-slip. He also came to know from the account statement that the OP surrendered seven LIC policies the amount of which was adjusted with the HBL without any information to the Complainant on 21.12.21. Thus, the OP bank violated the OTS scheme which was provided by the OP on 29.10.21. On the other hand, the OP handed over a letter dated 18.10.21 on 10.12.21 which revealed that both loan of the Complainant turned into NPA on 31.12.18 having an overdue of Rs.9,12,751/- and Rs.9,37,970/-+ applicable interest which were required to be cleared within seven days from the date of receipt of this letter without fail. Therefore, the letter dated 18-10-21 was given to Complainant on 10-12-21 which was illegal. But as per account statement of the CC loan, the Complainant fully paid off the loan on 28-12-18 in which balance was shown zero zero. It was found on scrutiny that OP bank deposited the proceeds of LIC policies to the loan account without intimating overdue of the CC loan. Thereafter, the Complainant had been to OP bank for redressal of his grievance but to no avail. These activities of the OP amounted to blatant negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused irreparable loss in Complainant’s business and at the same time he lost financially due to premature withdrawal of LIC policies and suffered mental pain and agony for which he claimed compensation on reparation ground. This premature withdrawal of seven LIC policies and some amount of the said values received by the OP bank to adjust the both loan has caused a deficiency in service to the Complainant. As a last resort the Complainant filed this case before this Commission for proper justice against the OP Bank. The cause of action of the present case arose on 29-10-21 when the Complainant accepted the OTS scheme 2001-22 and when the Complainant deposited Rs. 2,45,000/- for OTS scheme to the OP bank and when the Complainant made several correspondence with the OP bank for redressal and still continued. Therefore, he prayed for direction to the op bank to provide OTS scheme for A/C No-2246939660 amounting to Rs. 6,40,000/-, to revive seven numbers of LIC policies which were surrendered by the OP bank, to pay Rs. 2 Lakhs for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, to pay Rs. 50,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of proceeding.
Summon was served upon the OP. The OP contested the case by filing written version, evidence on affidavit and written argument. The OP in his defence stated that the Complainant was negligent in making repayment of the EMIs of the said loans from the very beginning. So, the OP bank issued several notices to the Complainant to make payment of the dues and to regularize the loan account but inspite of that he did not pay the dues of the bank. Again on 14-07-17 the Complainant undertook to regularize the payment of dues but he could not, the result of which OP bank on 10-05-18 and lastly on 18-10-21 sent notices informing that as CC loan account turned into NPA and repayment of HBL account was unsatisfactory so the bank was going to surrender the LIC policies to adjust the amount with both loans so as to not make the Complainant deprived of his property which was mortgaged with the bank. As the loan accounts turned into NPA on 02-10-11 for the first time and subsequently on 29-05-12, 30-09-18 and 31-12-18 and each time he urged the op to liquidate the LIC policies and adjust the same in the loan account. Subsequently the OP bank issued a letter dated 29-10-21 in respect of NDND special OTS scheme 2021-22 for one Time settlement of NPAs and Technical write off / Prudential write off accounts for Account No. 2246939660 of the Complainant. The Complainant accepted the offer of OTS having OTS offer amount Rs. 6,40,000/- and deposited Rs. 30,000/- for processing of the OTS application which was less than 5% of the offer amount. Moreover, the Complainant had to pay the entire negotiable amount Rs. 6,40,000/= within three months. Ultimately, on 06-12-21 he applied to the OP to liquidate the LIC policies for adjusting with the loan account. He also applied for statement of account in English language on 29-01-22 to the op which indicated his conversance of English language.
Thereafter, the OP bank on the basis of such application and exercising its power of lien and pledge surrendered the LIC policies and adjusted the amount with HBL account of the Complainant and accordingly HBL account was closed but the CC loan account of the Complainant was in NPA category. Thus, the allegation of CC loan fully paid off on 28-12-18 as per account statement showing balance Zuro Zuro was denied by the OP. The OP asserted that once an account declared NPA, then the software stops calculating interest after NPA declaration date and shows only outstanding principle in the account statement. Again the OP stated that after issuing notice under securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short SARFAESI Act) the Complainant accepted the proposal of NDND special OTS scheme 2021-22 for one time settlement of NPAs by payment of much lesser amount than the original dues of the bank. Thus, the said HBL account of the Complainant was compromised by the bank for which the OP bank incurred a huge loss. Moreover, the Complainant flouted the terms and conditions of the OTS as he did not pay the total OTS amount within three months which ended on 29-01-21. Therefore, the claim which was prayed by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and excessive and he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in the complaint petition. So, the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.
Perused the pleadings, evidence on affidavit and written argument of both parties. Heard the argument of both parties at length. Now the Commission comes to a conclusion that following points are required to be ascertained to adjudicate the instant ease effectively.
Points for determination
- Whether there was any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP?
- Whether the Complainant in entitled to get any relief whatsoever?
Decision with reasons
Both points are taken up together as they are interlinked with each other and for brevity. The Complainant, Mr. Saibal Sarkar took a cash credit loan amounting to Rs. 3 Lakhs in the year 2003 (Annexure-A) and a House Building Loan amounting to Rs. 7,50,000/- in the year, 2004 from the OP bank (Annexure- B). At the time of taking loan, the OP bank took eight LIC policy alongwith title deeds from the Complainant as mortgage. But the Complainant was very reluctant to repay the loans from the very beginning after availing the loan. So, the op bank issued several notices to the Complainant to make payment of dues and to regularize the loan accounts. Despite such notices, the Complainant did not pay the dues of the bank. Ultimately, the loan accounts turned into NPA which was intimated to the Complainant by OP through a letter No. CHOWDH/2001/ 10/03 dated 18-10-2 (Annexure-G). Again, the OP bank sent a letter dated 29-10-21 to the Complainant for availing NDND special OTS scheme 2021-22 for one time settlement of NPAs which the Complainant accepted (Annexure-C). There were few terms and conditions of the abovesaid scheme which the Complainant should abide by for repayment of the loan.
The following terms and condition were laid down in the abovesaid scheme:-
(i) Contractual amount due as 31-03-21, Rs.9,31,258/-
(ii) OTS offer amount: Rs. 6,40,000/=.
(iii) Application for OTS will be processed only on deposition of minimum 5% of OTS amount.
(iv)The remaining amount has to be paid within 30 days of the sanction of the OTS.
(v) If 10% of the OTS amount (including 50% remitted upfront) is paid within 30 days from the date of sanction of The OTS, the remaining amount can be paid within six months, in monthly installment from the date of sanction of the OTS (the validity period) together with interest @1Y MCLR on reducing balance basis effective from the date of sanction of the OTS, failing which OTS sanction will be rendered infructuous. Further a minimum 50% of OTS amount has to be paid within three months of sanction.
(vi)However, no interest will be charged if the entire OTS amount is paid within one month from the date of sanction of OTS.
(vii) Failing to repay the entire amount within stipulated time period as above will render the OTS infructous and therefore amount paid under OTS if any will not be refunded.
From the Annexure-D which are the pay-in-slip of different dates ranging from 29-10-21 to 14-01-22 where the Complainant deposited a total sum of Rs.2,45,000/- to the OP bank within three months. As per terms and condition mentioned in section (i) and (ii) he was required to pay a minimum 5% of the OTS amount which was Rs.32,000/- for processing of the OTS application but he paid Rs. 30,000/- for the same. The remaining Rs.6,10,000/- was required to be paid within one month from the date of sanction of the OTS (i.e. 29.10.21) but he could not fulfill this terms and conditions also. Again as per section(v) of the OTS scheme he should have paid 50% of the OTS amount i.e. Rs.3,20,000/- within three months. He paid Rs.2,45,000/- within three months of sanction of the OTS. Here as per this section he failed to fulfill the criteria. So, he failed to repay the entire amount within stipulated time period which rendered the OTS scheme infructuous and amount paid would not be refunded as per section (vii) of the scheme. Therefore, considering all aspects the Commission is of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP for which the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief whatsoever.
Thus, the both points are answered in negative.
In the result, the complaint case fails on contest.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest.
D.A. to note in the trial Register.
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.
