In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, At Chinsurah.
Case No. CC/47/2019.
Date of filing: 05/04/2016. Date of Final Order: 20/09/2024.
Sri Samir Kumar Biswas,
S/o. Late Mahendra Lal Biswas,
Residence at 109, Maynadanga,
P.O. Chinsurah R. S. P.S. Chinsurah.
District Hooghly PIN-712102. …………….COMPLAINANT.
-VERSUS-
- The Branch Manager
Paschim Banga Gramin Bank
Sugandhya Branch P.O. Sugandhya
P.S. - Polba District Hooghly PIN-712102.
- The Regional Manager
Paschim Banga Gramin Bank
Nilanjana Complex, Bankim Kanan,
Station Road P.O. Chinsurah R. S.
P.S. - Chinsurah District Hooghly PIN-712102.
- Paschim Banga Gramin Bank
Having Registered Office at,
Natabar Pal Road, Chatterjee Para More
Tikiapara Howrah-711 101.……….OPPOSITE PARTIES.
Before: President, Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay.
Member, Debasis Bhattacharya.
Member, Babita Chaudhuri.
FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Presented by:-
Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.
Brief fact of this case:- This case has been filed U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that as per system of the Government of West Bengal salary of the Complainant is paid and disbursed through banks and the Complainant draws his salary through Paschim Banga Gramin Bank, Sugandhya Branch situated at Village - Sugandhya under P.S. Polba, Dist. Hooghly with which he has a Savings Bank Account No. 10760100002851 and the said A/c. is hereinafter called and described "Salary A/c." for brevity.
That in the year 2005 Reserve Bank of India formulated a broad Guide Lines for Banks for issuance of General Credit Card (GCC) and within those Guide Lines each Bank flouts its own scheme of General Credit Card for catering to the Non Farm entrepreneurial Credit needs of individuals the consumption Credit extended to individuals is not to be covered under GCC. However the objective is to increase flow of Credit to individuals for entrepreneurial activity in the Non Firm Sector and it is to be noted here that all Non-Firm entrepreneurial Credit extended to individuals which is eligible for clarification under the priority section. In such GCC systems no ceiling on the Loan Amount and the limit should be fixed on the basis of Risk Assessment and the rate of interest is to be decided by Banks in terms of their Board approved Policies within the overall Guide Lines issued by Reserve Bank of India on interest rates from time to time.
That the Government of India introduced a Scheme for Government Teachers to facilitate them to meet with financial need under certain terms and conditions which is of the kind of Loan titled as "Shiksha Samman" for the availing of which the Complainant opened a Loan A/c bearing A/c No. 10760610003728 with Paschim Banga Gramin Bank, Sugandhya Branch, Hooghly and the said loan A/c is hereinafter called and described as "S. S. Loan" for brevity.
That at the time of sanctioning the abovesaid S. S. Loan the O.P. No. I told verbally that the sanctioned Loan amount of Rs. 3,60,000/ would be deducted from his Salary A/c by 60 (Sixty) EMI Ra. 9,900/- per month, but no terms and conditions of the said Loan was ever furnished in writing to the Complainant..
That the Complainant, as he was given to understand, used to repay the said amount of "S. S. Loan" by way of deducting from his "Salary Account sum of Rs. 9,900/- per month but after payment of 27 Nos. of EMIs Rs. 9,900/- per month the Complainant received a message from O.P. No. 1 that thenceforth the EMI amount would be Rs. 9,880/- per month and from the statement of A/c in respect of the S. S. Loan A/c the Complainant observed that from 31.01.2018 the amount of EMI was reduced to Rs. 9,880/- instead of Rs.9,900/- and observing such a discrepancy when the Complainant asked the O.P. No. 1 regarding the reason of such reducement of the amount of EMI he told that it was a matter of only Rs. 20/ but he could not explain the reason for that which obviously indicated that the concerned official of the O.P. / Bank either failed to calculate the exact amount of EMIs or they acted according to their whims and caprices and as such the Complainant again asked O.P. / Bank once again to furnish in writing the actual terms and conditions which was supposed to be complied.
That at the time of disbursement of the said S. S. Loan it was th agreed between the Opposite Parties / Bank and the Complainant that the EMIs of the said S. S. Loan would deducted from the Salary Ale No. 10760100002851 of the Complainant by the Opposite Parties/Bank which was treated as standing instruction by the Complainant and accordingly the O.P. No. 1 started realizing the amount of EMI every month by way of transfer from the Salary A/c. to the S. S. Loan A/c of the Complainant starting from 02.05.2015.
That while the realization of the EMIs for the said S. S. Loan was solely vested with the O.P. No. 1 it was surprising and totally out of place that the O.P. No. 1 sent a Demand Notice dated 01.11.2018 not only to the Complainant but also to the Sureties who stood for the Complainant in respect of the said S. S. Loan A/c. and thereby demanding Rs. 19,000/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand) only to be paid on or before 16.11.2018 which made the Complainant bewildered as to how the said amount of Rs. 19,000/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand) only stood overdues because the realization of the said S. S. Loan Account as per EMIs were vested with the O.P. No. 1 himself and so there could be no question of defaulting the payment of dues by the Complainant Moreover, when the EMIs were deducted from the Salary A/c. of the Complainant and the service of the Complainant was not over, there cannot arise any question of the said S. S. Loan A/c. That it would never be realised and for realization of such dues, should not be realised from the sureties as it is a well known method of realization of any dues from the sureties when all the possible means or resources of the Loanee was exhausted which is not the Case here.
That it is curious and astounding that immediately after two days of sending the said Demand Notice dated 01.11.2018 the O.P. No. 1 again sent a Demand Notice Dated 08.11.2018 whereby it was communicated to the Complainant that outstanding Balance against the said S.S. Loan was Rs. 83,721/ as it was stood on 31.10.2018 and noticeably in that very Demand Notice there was no mention of any amount as outstanding which was to be paid on or before 16.11.2018 nor it was mentioned in the earlier Demand Notice dated 01.11.2018 and it is also to be noted here when the said Demand Notice dated 03.11.2018 was under the subject head of "Demand Notice for the S. S. Loan it agitated an another subject concerning the GCC A/c. which encompasses another subject matter which is in no way connected with the S. S. Loan A/c, and hence the Complainant was confused and confounded as to what is the intend and purpose of the O.P. / Bank and what he was exactly required to do.
That when the entire matter was very much enigmatic and beyond the reasonable under standing of the Complainant he took entire matter to his Learned Advocate to meet with" the harassing foul play of the Opposite Parties / Bank.
That the Learned (Advocate of the Complainant sent a Legal Notice dated 16.11.2018 to the Opposite Party No. 1 alongwith the copies forwarded to the Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 and thereby represented the entire illegal, arbitrary and harrassive activities of the Opposite Parties and they were asked to restrain themselves from indulging in any short of illegal and harrassive activities putting the Complainant in uncalled for trouble beyond the Official norms and obligations.
That in reply to the above said Legal Notice sent by the Complainant, the Learned Advocate for the Opposite Parties sent a rejoinder dated 17.12.2018 whereby the Learned Advocate of the Opposite Parties, amongst other matters, it was admitted that there was no short of payment and the S. S. Loan Account was regular except short payment for November, 2018 and further it was admitted by the Learned Advocate of the Opposite Party that it was not his Client's responsibilities to deduct his salary which was not permissible as per Scheme of G. C. C. and it was also mentioned in the said reply that the contract in respect of G. C. C. A/c was upto 17.04.2021.
That it is worthwhile here to mention that although the Complainant asked Opposite Parties both verbally and in writing to supply him the terms and conditions of both the S. S. Loan A/c. and the GCC Loan A/c., but those terms and conditions have not been supplied till date and so the rules of law in respect of bilateral contract between the Complainant and the O.P. have been violated.
That in regard to GCC A/c of the Complainant the Opposite Parties / Bank adopted different stand at different times and as the terms and conditions of the very GCC A/c have not been supplied to the Complainant and so he was confounded as to what he is legally required to do and particularly when the period of validity of the very Accounts is upto 17.04.2021 it is not clear as to why he is to renew the very Account in the mid period which will be evident from a letter bearing Ref. No. PBGB/SUG/TEA/158/ 2018-2019 Dated 17.09.2018 issued by the O. P. No. 01 to the Complainant.
Reply sent thereto by the Learned Advocate of the Opposite Parties / Bank through his reply dated 17.12.2018 the Opposite Parties / Bank became revengeful and started harassing the Complainant by different ways and means e.g., the O. P. No. 01 sent a Notice to the Complainant bearing Ref. No.: PBGB/ SUG/Notice/224/2018-19 Date 07.01.2019 whereby it was communicated to the Complainant that the Bank in advertantly (although wrongly typed as "advertantly" which is clearly understandable from the context of the very notice) mentioned that Shiksha Samman Loan was repayable by 60 EMIs instead of 8 EMls and as such the outstanding balance as on 01.12.2018 was Rs. 80,801 and over due amount on date was Ha, D3521.00/ and he was asked for repayment of overdue amount at an early date.
That vindictive measures adopted by the Opposite Partios/Bank can very well be ascertained from the entries in the Pass Books of the Complainant in regard to his Savings Bank Account, Shiksha Samman Loan Account and the G. C. C. Loan Account where from it can be verified that in the month of January, 2010 and in the month of February, 2019 the O.P. / bank started deducting large amount of money arbitrarily and beyond any rules and regulations from the Salary Account of the Complainant and thereby put the Complainant in such a position that he could not withdraw the minimum amount required for maintaining his family.
That a careful scrutiny of the abovesaid three Pass Book it will be revealed that in the month of January, 2019 and the February. 2019 how many times on a single date the amount of money have been debited from the Salary A/c. of the Complainant under the plea of realization of overdue amount and such arbitrary and high handed deduction and / or realization of money pushed the Complainant at the bay of starvation which no rule or law will support because the right to live is a constitutional safe guard to any citizen of India, not to pay about the right of a customer in a Banking transaction.
That the Opposite Parties / Bank have failed to discharge their obligations in respect of the abovesaid S. S. Loan A/c. granted to the Complainant by not providing the Written terms and condition of the aforesaid Loans although at the time of granting of the said Loan the Complainant had to execute Agreement with the Opposite Parties in regard to the said Loans.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- due to mental agony, harassment, pain, inconvenience, frustration and untold misery suffered by the complainant as a result of deficiency and defect of services and to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost and to pay a sum of Rs. 200 per day in the event of deficiency and defect of service continues after filing of this case till the date of payment and not to deduct any amount from the salary account of the complainant in respect of GCC A/c and also realization of the S.S. loan more than once in a month from the salary A/c as the term EMI stands for monthly installment till disposal of the instant complaint.
Defense Case:- The opposite parties contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them and stated that the Complainant availed one PBGB Cash Loan from his Account no. 10760610003728 from the opposite party viz., Paschim Banga Gramin Bank, Sugandhya Branch. Complainant from the very beginning depicted his irregular attitude towards the repayment of the aforesaid loan. After completion of one year for availing the aforesaid Loan facility from the Opposite Party / Bank, it has time to time requested the complainant for the renewal of the aforesaid PBGB Cash Loan as per the guidelines set by the Reserve Bank of India vide No. RBI/2005-06/245 RPCD. CO. No. RRB.BC. 59/03.05.33(F)/2005-06. But the complainant did not pay any heed to the words of the Opposite party Bank and never initiated for the renewal of the aforesaid PBGB Cash Loan for which the opposite party bank declared the aforesaid PBGB Cash Loan vide Account no. 10760610003728 as NPA. In accordance with Section 13 of the Insolvent Debtors Relief Act, 1728 the Banker has a right to Set off against a particular debt for which the opposite party bank adjusted the unpaid amount from the Savings bank Account vide no. 10760100002851 standing in the name of the complainant and it is to mentioned here that the Opposite Party/ Bank before initiation of the aforesaid Loan by the Complainant the Opposite party / bank provided every details and description of the aforesaid Loan to the Complainant. So, the complaint case is liable to be dismissed.
Issues/points for consideration
On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
- Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.
The answering opposite parties filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version and so it is needless to discuss.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant and opposite parties filed written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the ld. Advocates of the complainant and the opposite parties heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and document produced by parties.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
The first three issues/ points of consideration which have been framed on the ground of maintainability and/ or jurisdiction, cause of action and whether complainant is a consumer in the eye of law, are very vital issues and so these three points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly at first.
Regarding these three points of consideration it is very important to note that the opposite parties even after appearance in this case and after filing written version, have not filed any petition on the ground of nonmaitainability of this case due to the reason best known to them. Under this position this District Commission has passed the order of further hearing of this case. On this background it is also mention worthy that the opposite parties also have not filed any separate petition challenging the maintainability point, jurisdiction point and cause of action issue. The opposite parties in their written version have only pleaded the above noted points. This District Commission after going through the materials of the case record finds that the complainant is a resident of Chinsurah, Hooghly and OP no.1&2 are carrying on business at Sugandhya, Hooghly which are lying within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission. Moreover, this complaint case has been filed with a claim of below 50 lakhs and this matter is clearly indicating that this District Commission has also pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. Thus, the point of jurisdiction which has been alleged by the opposite parties cannot be accepted. Moreover, u/s 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, this District Commission has jurisdiction to try this case. The opposite parties also have raised the plea of limitation and in the written version it has been pointed out that this case is barred by limitation. But in this connection it is important to note that the provision of 69 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is very important and according to the provision of Section 69 complaint case can be entertained by the District Commission or State Commission or National Commission even after expiry of 2 years if the complainant satisfies the ld. Commission that he or she has sufficient ground for not filing the case within two years. Moreover in this instant case the cause of action has been continued and thus the above noted plea of the opposite parties which has been pointed out in the written version is also not acceptable. On close examination of the pleadings of the parties it also transpires that there is cause of action for filing this case by the complainant side against the opposite parties. Moreover after going through the provisions of Section 2 (1) (e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 it appears that this case is maintainable and according to the provision of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Complainant is a consumer in the eye of law. It is the settled principle of law that failure of the bank authority to comply with the contractual obligation to release claim amount in deficiency in service. This legal principle has been laid down by Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi and it is reported in 2022 (2) CPR 13 (Del).
All these factors are clearly depicting that this case is maintainable and complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and this District Commission has territorial/ pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case and there is also cause of action for filing this case by the complainant against the opposite parties. Thus, the above noted three points of consideration are decided in favour of the complainant.
The point no. 4 is related with the question as to whether there is any deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties or not? The point no. 5 is connected with the question as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case or not? These two points of consideration are interlinked and/ or interconnected with each other and for that reason these two points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly.
For the purpose of deciding the fate of these two points of consideration and for the interest of getting answers of the above noted questions, there is necessity of scanning the evidence on affidavit filed by the parties and there is also necessity making scrutiny of the documents filed by the parties of this case.
On comparative studies of the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant with the evidence on affidavit filed by the opposite parties and on close compare of the documents filed by both parties it appears that it appears that the complainant has taken two loans from the OP bank authority against his salary A/c which has been mentioned above and the said two loans are G.C.C loans and S.S. loan and as the complainant has taken the said loans he is duty bound to repay the said loan as per E.M.I fixed by the bank authority. In this regard the complainant side has adopted the plea that the bank authority who is the OP of this case is making illegal demands in the matter of repayment of the above noted loans. Regarding this matter the Op bank authority has taken the defence alibi that as the complainant has not paid the loan amount properly and according to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the OP bank authority is claiming the overdue and / or arrear loan amount. In this regard this District Commission after going through the evidence of both sides finds that the OP bank authority has not supplied the papers and documents of the loan agreement in respect of above noted two loans to the complainant. This matter is clearly reflecting that the OP has their negligence and deficiency of service in the matter of realization of the loan amount. Thus it is crystal clear that the complainant is entitled to get relief in this case against the OP bank authority.
A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that the complainant has proved his case in respect of all the points of considerations adopted in this case and for that reason the complainant is entitled to get relief in this case in respect of all the points of consideration.
In the result it is accordingly
ordered
that the complaint case being no. 47 of 2019 be and the same is allowed on contest but in part.
OP-1&2 are hereby directed to handover the papers and documents relating to loan agreement to the complainant and to realize the loan amount not in arbitrary fashion but according to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The OPs are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- and to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this judgment. Otherwise the complainant is given liberty to execute this award as per law.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
