West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/16/2015

Soumyajit Nandy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

And

 Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.16/2015

                                                       

                                                                      Soumyajit Nandy…………..….……Complainant.

Versus

                                                                 The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Dahijuri Branch,

                                                                  Paschim Medinipur………………….…..……..Opp. Party.

 

              For the Complainant : Mr. Diptendu Ghosh,  Advocate.

              For the O.P.                : Mr. Badal Kumar Raj, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 07/10/2015

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President - Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant Soumyajit Nandy,  a public sector employee, approached the Op. Bank for a car loan and he got sanction of a car term loan vide arrangement letter dated 27/07/2012 and loan A/C no.32445287648 for Rs.1,80,000/- only from the State Bank of India, Dahijuri Branch i.e. the opposite party, on condition to repay the said loan in 48 equal monthly installment of Rs.4,105/-.  The complainant has another savings bank account being no.32381931652 with the bank of the opposite party and all the E.M.I. is being directly debited from the said account as per standing instruction of the complainant.    After 2 years of regular payment of E.M.I., the opposite party informed by SMS on 21/07/2014 in the cell phone of the complainant that the loan repayment account of the complainant is irregular by Rs.20,688/-.  On 22/07/2014, the complainant contacted the O.P. Bank and submitted a letter dated 22/07/2014 requesting the OP. Bank to clarify such alleged loan irregularity amount but the O.P. Bank did not response.  As such the complainant lodged online complaint and approached the Customer Grievance Cell of

Contd…………….P/2

 

( 2 )

S.B.I. at Samriddhi  Bhaban, Kolkata but they said that the matter will be taken care of by the opposite party.  Thereafter, the complainant received a letter dated 12/08/2014 vide no.BR/34/53 from the OP. Bank which shows that the opposite party has breached the contract and violated the terms & conditions of the arrangement letter of loan. By the said letter, the OP. Bank has illegally claimed an outstanding loan irregularity amount of  Rs. 20,409/- and an increased E.M.I. of Rs.4,711 instead of Rs.4,015/-.  Finding no other alternative, the complainant approached before the Ombudsman and lodged a complaint via e-mail on 27/08/2014 but Ombudsman did not settle the grievance of the complainant.  It is stated that the complainant regularly paid agreed E.M.I. as per contract with the opposite party but with mala fide intention and with a view to harass  the complainant,  the O.P.-Bank  has illegally claimed the alleged loan irregularity amount  of Rs.20,409/- and increased E.M.I. of Rs.4,711/- vide its letter dated 12/08/2014. Moreover, with a view to cause illegal pressure upon the complainant, the opposite party has sent a wrong massage/information to CIBIL (Credit Information Bureau of India Ltd.) as regards payment of loan in question and thereby the opposite party has established this complainant as defaulter, so that in future, the complainant may not get loan, if necessary, from any other authority.  Such act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on their part and it is detrimental to the complainant for which the complainant is also entitled to get compensation.   Hence, the complaint, praying for an order  that the  claim of Rs.20,409/- by the opposite party from the complainant is void and illegal and for other reliefs, as per prayer of the petition of complaint.

                  The O.P. Bank has contested this case by filling a written statement.   In their written statement, the O.P.-Bank has denied all the allegations made in the petition of complaint.   O.P. Bank has made out no specific case of their own against the case of the complainant. 

 

Point for decision

                      Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for?     

                   

Decision with reasons

At the very outset, it is to be mentioned here that in this particular case neither the complainant nor the opposite party has adduced any sort of evidence either oral or documentary.  Complainant has of course relied upon certain documents, so filed by him in support of his case but the O.P. Bank filed no document at all. 

Contd…………….P/3

 

( 3 )

   From the petition of complaint as well as from the documents, filed by the complainant, we find that the complainant submitted a car loan application form, duly filled up and signed by him and his guarantor-wife before the O.P. Bank.  On basis of that application, the O.P. Bank sanctioned the car loan and issued an arrangement letter dated 27/07/2012 thereby sanctioning a car term loan of Rs.1,80,000/-.  From clause 4 of that arrangement letter dated 27/07/2012, we find that it was agreed that the loan is to be paid in equated monthly installments of Rs.4,105/- each till the entire loan with interest is fully repaid.  It is the case of the complainant that after obtaining such loan, he has been regularly repaying E.M.I. of Rs.4,105/- and such repayment has been directly debited from his savings account no.32381931652 which is lying with the O.P.-Bank as per standing instruction of the complainant.  Further according to the complainant, he has paid such EMI regularly and he is not a defaulter at all in paying regular E.M.I. of the loan amount.  At the time of hearing of argument, no question was raised by the Ld. Advocate of the O.P. Bank regarding regular payment of EMI by the complainant. From the statement of loan account in question, so filed by the complainant, we find that the complainant regularly paid EMI of the loan account. 

The grievance of the complainant is that in spite of such regular repayment of E.M.I., the opposite party informed him by sending a SMS in his cell phone that the loan repayment account of the complainant is irregular by Rs.20,688/-.  Thereafter, by sending a letter vide no. BR/34/53 dated 12/08/2014, the opposite party illegally claimed an outstanding loan irregularity amount of Rs.20,409/- and an increased E.M.I. of Rs.4,711/- instead of agreed E.M.I. of Rs.4,015/- by violating the terms and conditions of the commercial contract of loan agreement.  In support of his said case, the complainant has filed the said letter of the opposite party wherefrom we find that the O.P. Bank informed the complainant that installment towards car loan of Rs.1,80,000/- was fixed erroneously as Rs.4,105/- instead of correct installment of Rs.4,674/-.   By the said letter, the O.P. Bank asked the complainant to regularize his account by paying irregular amount of Rs.20,409/- and to pay the rest outstanding by monthly installment of Rs.4711/-.  This letter goes to show that the O.P. Bank by violating the terms and conditions of the agreement of loan, has made an illegal demand by asking the complainant to pay an excess amount of Rs.20.409/- and informed the complainant to pay the  rest outstanding by monthly installment of  Rs.4711/- instead of agreed E.M.I. of Rs.4105/-.  By the said letter, it was told that the installment towards car loan was fixed erroneously as Rs.4105/- instead of correct installment of Rs.4674/-.   During hearing of argument, Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. Bank

Contd…………….P/4

 

( 4 )

submitted that at the time of preparation of arrangement letter of loan, amount of E.M.I. was erroneously fixed at Rs.4105/- instead of correct amount of installment of Rs.4674/- and when such mistake was detected by the bank, then the complainant was informed about the said matter vide their letter dated 12/08/2014.  Said submission and explanation is very much silly and it is not at all believable.  It is not at all expected and believable that a reputed bank like S.B.I. would do such type of mistake.  Be that as it may, it is the settled law that an agreement made by and between the parties binds both the parties provided the terms of agreement are fair and are not opposed to natural justice.  From the copy of loan agreement, we find that the terms of agreement of the loan are lawful and the parties have bound themselves under the said agreement.  After two years of such loan agreement, the opposite party by sending a letter cannot claim any extra amount beyond the loan agreement from the complainant by saying that the amount of installment was erroneously fixed at Rs.4105/- instead of 4674/-.  Such act  and claim of the O.P. Bank is beyond the terms and conditions of a valid agreement and if any such claim is made by the opposite party regarding additional payment on the plea of erroneous writing of amount of installment,  such claim is not only against the rule of natural justice but also an act of arbitrariness on the part of the O.P. Bank .

            That apart,  we also find from the petition of complaint that as per wrong information sent by the O.P. Bank as regards payment of such loan in question to  CIBIL (Credit Information Bureau India Ltd.), this complainant has been established as a defaulter with a view to deprive him from getting  any loan from any authority.  As against this, it is the case of the O.P. Bank,  as made out in their written objection against the prayer for amendment of plaint that they did not sent any such information to the CIBIL.  At the time of hearing of argument, Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. Bank also submitted that their bank never sent any such information to the CIBIL.  Ld. Lawyer for the complainant made his submission that the complainant has came to know that with a view to create pressure upon him, the O.P. Bank has informed CIBIL showing the complainant as defaulter.  We have already found that the complainant has prayed E.M.I. regularly in terms of agreement of loan and he never defaulter in making payment of such E.M.I..  So, the said act of the opposite party bank as regards sending information to CIBIL showing the complainant as defaulter is another act of deficiency in service and such act is very much detrimental to the complainant which needs to be compensated by the O.P. Bank .

In the above facts and circumstances and in view of our above discussions  and findings,  the complaint case stands succeed.

                    Contd…………….P/5

 

 

( 5 )

                                         Hence, it is,

                                                                          Ordered,

                                                                                 that the complaint case no.16/2015 is allowed on contest with cost against the O.P. Bank.  O.P. Bank is directed not to claim any extra amount beyond the terms and conditions of letter of arrangement of loan dated 27/07/2012 from the complainant.  O.P. Bank is further directed to inform CIBIL (Central Investigation Bureau of India Ltd.) that the complainant Soumyajit Nandi is not a defaulter and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) only as compensation and litigation cost to the complainant within a month from this date of order.

             Dictated & Corrected by me

                                Sd/-                                           Sd/-                                        Sd/-

                           President                                    Member                                 President

                                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                                      Paschim Medinipur