Date of filing : 19.01.2018

Judgment : Dt.22.2.2019

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President

            This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by Sri Sumitindra Sarkar alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (referred as OP hereinafter) namely (1) The Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, (2) The Chief Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and (3) The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur.

            Complainant’s case, in brief, is that he took loan of Rs.5,10,000/- from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur,, Ajaynagar Branch within Jadavpur East Police Station. At the time of obtaining the loan, Complainant deposited 120 numbers of post-dated-cheques towards security of due repayment of the loan. OP No.1 presented the cheques of the Complainant up to April, 2012 and realized the EMI. But stopped presenting the post-dated-cheques of the Complainant since May, 2012. So, the EMI of the Complainant remained due and ultimately the interest on the home loan remained outstanding to Rs.1,35,793/-. OP No.1 added the outstanding amount to the loan account of the Complainant. Complainant had also deposited his original title deed with the OP No.1 as equitable mortgage. Complainant was never informed by the OPs that they had not deposited those other post-dated-cheques for clearing the EMI of the Complainant. On 5.6.2015 when the Complainant visited the OPs’ office he was told regarding the outstanding. But the Complainant informed them that he had already deposited 120 number of post-dated-cheques with the Branch Manager. He also reminded that the EMI was started through on line payment from 17.10.2015. So, the Complainant sent a letter to the OP regarding  outstanding interest charged on him and the extra interest to pay equal share between the Complainant and the Bank. Through e-mail OP No.3 on 25.1.2017 asked the Complainant to see OP No.3 for  final settlement of excess amount interest charged and on visit, after discussion, it was resolved that the Complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.42,000/- against the said excess amount of Rs.1,35,793/-. He was also assured that he would be intimated in writing regarding the result of the said meeting and the solution arrived. But, thereafter, the OPs did not intimate the same. On 9.3.2017, OP No.1 through his letter claimed that 120 post-dated-cheques were deposited by the Complainant and asked the Complainant to deposit again the cheques for payment of balance amount including the outstanding amount which the Bank could not claim. So, the present case has been filed by the Complainant praying for directing the OPs to find the remaining post-dated-cheques of the Complainant lying with the Bank, to direct the OP not to claim Rs.1,35,793/- towards interest of loan from April, 2012 to June, 2015, to direct the OP not to demand any interest accrued on the said interest of loan amount of Rs.1,35,793/-, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

Complainant has annexed with the complaint, copy of e-mail sent to the OP by the Complainant on different dates, letter dt.13.8.2017 written by the Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, copy of the letter sent by the Complainant through his Advocate dt.7.8.2017, letter dt.14.11.2018 and on line print Bank statement. He has also filed a statement regarding details of post-dated-cheques submitted to the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur.

            OPs contested the case by filing written version, denying the allegations made in the complaint petition stating inter alia that a term loan of Rs.5,10,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the Complainant on 14.11.2008 with repayment period of 10 years with a condition that the Complainant shall repay the entire loan amount with interest by equal 120 EMIs to the Bank by post-dated-cheques only. But the Complainant submitted only 41 number of cheques to the Bank being cheques Nos.4652212 to 465240, 465201 to 465220 and cheque being No.256191. The Complainant should have ensured the timely submission of remaining 79 number of cheques. But, he failed to submit the cheques in spite of reminding him by the Bank. So, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the case as Complainant is liable to pay the amount towards loan and interest accrued therein, including the additional interest.

During the course of evidence, both the parties have filed their respective affidavit-in-chiefs followed by filing of the questionnaire and reply thereto. Both the parties ultimately advanced their respective arguments. The Complainant and the OPs have also filed written notes of arguments.

So, the following points require determination:

            1) Whether there has been any deficiency in rendering service on the part of the OPs?

            2) Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

            Decision with reasons :

            Point No.1 & 2

            Both the points are taken up together for a comprehensive discussions. Admittedly, Complainant was sanctioned a term loan of Rs.5,10,000/- on 14.11.2018. The bone of contention in this case is, according to the Complainant he had submitted all the 120 post-dated-cheques to the Bank towards 120 EMIs, whereas according to the OPs only 41 number of cheques were submitted by the Complainant to the OPs and he was liable to submit further 79 number of cheques for 79 months, but he did not do so. It has been categorically stated in the written version that the OP No.1 sanctioned the loan in favour of the petitioner with repayment period of 10 years with the condition that the petitioner shall repay the entire loan amount with interest by equal 120 EMIs to the Bank by post-dated-cheques only. So, the said very statement of the OP suggest that the loan was sanctioned subject to payment of 120 EMIs and on submission of 120 post-dated-cheques. Complainant has stated in his reply against the questionnaire filed by the OP that he had submitted all the required 120 number of post-dated-cheques and has stated the number of PDCs [156027 to 156040 (except 156028, 156029,156032 and 156033), 5430 to 5440, 256181 to 256200 cheque No.118421 to 118440 (except 118424) of Axis Bank Park Street branch and 847701 to 847720 of State Bank of Bikaner and Joypur. So, Complainant has specified the cheque Numbers also which was submitted by him with the OPs as per the condition as referred to by the OPs in their written version. It may also be pertinent to point out that the OPs have admitted about issuing cheque No.156191 which according to them was returned due to alteration. If the said fact is accepted as agitated by the OPs then it is hard to believe that the Complainant issued one single cheque from the entire leaf as according to the Complainant he issued post-dated-cheques being No.256181 to 256200. So, the said cheque 256191 appears to be one of the cheques out of those post-dated-cheques. Furthermore, why the Bank would sanction the loan when the very pre-condition of sanction of the loan was payment of EMIs and to realize the same borrower has to submit the post-dated-cheques. So, it is not reliable that the Bank accepted only 41 cheques and sanctioned the entire loan amount in favour of the Complainant. It may also be mentioned that the cheque No.256191, as was already presented and was returned due to alteration, Bank could not deny about submission of the same.

            The OPs have claimed that they have reminded the Complainant to submit the remaining 79 cheques before the due date but for the reasons best known to the OPs not even a single scrap of paper has been filed in order to substantiate that they had demanded or reminded Complainant for issuance of alleged 79 numbers of cheques. So, the said claim of the OPs that they reminded the Complainant for issuing the 79 number of cheques is nothing but an after-thought On the contrary in the absence of any document by the OPs it safely leads to inference that the claim of Bank that only 41 cheques were submitted by the Complainant, is not true. Apparently it is a clear case of negligence that Bank failed to deposit the cheque on time issued by the Complainant.

            Complainant has also filed certain e-mails dt.25.1.2017 and 2.8.2016 wherein the Complainant has reiterated about submitting of post-dated-cheques to the Bank but in spite of providing the post-dated-cheques to the Bank, interest actually levied on his loan amount is Rs.1,35,793/-. It is also stated in these e-mails that if the post-dated-cheques were not lodged regularly by the Bank, which is Bank’s sole responsibility, the interest component would have been Rs.53,000/- and so he agreed for sharing of 50% of those interest as levied of Rs.1,35,793/-. Other e-mail d.8.2.2016 suggests that the Complainant also informed the Bank that the interest levied on his loan account due to non-repayment of the post-dated-cheques will be sharing between the Bank and himself, which was discussed between him and the Bank and he agreed as directed by the Branch Manager to pay the EMIs regularly upto March, 2016. He agreed to the offer of the Branch Manager to pay the EMIs up to March, 2016 and the settlement of 50% sharing will be done. These e-mails sent by the Complainant to the OP suggest that there was some discussion about the settlement of the additional amount of interest levied upon the Complainant especially when the Bank remained silent and no reply was sent to these e-mails, denying about any such discussion or settlement. If that be so, then the claim of the Complainant that the post-dated-cheques were not lodged on time by the Bank and thus he is not liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,35,793/- towards interest on loan cannot be rejected. It will not be out of place to mention here that when the loan is sanctioned by the Bank, the EMIs payable is calculated including interest.

 So, since there has been deficiency in rendering services on the part of the OPs, the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs.

            These points are thus answered accordingly.

            Hence

                                Ordered

          CC/31/2018 is allowed on contest. Opposite Parties are directed not to claim Rs.1,35,793/- towards interest of loan from April, 2012 to June, 2015 and shall not demand any interest accrued on the said amount. Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.12,000/- to the Complainant as litigation cost within 45 days from this date in default the amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. till realization.