DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 10 of 2018

 

1). Sri Surajit Chaudhuri,

S/O- Late Rai Mohan Choudhury,

2). Sri Abhijit Chowdhury,

S/O.-Late Rai Mohan Choudhury,

3). Smt. Reba Deb Choudhury,

W/O.-Lt. Rai Mohan Choudhury,

All are resident of 

Ramnagar Road No.5,

Behind Mukti Sangha Club, 

P.O.-Ramnagar, Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura, .…..…...........................Complainant.

 

          -VERSUS-

 

1). The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, Agartala, Branch,

Melarmath, H.G.B. Road,

Agartala, P.S.-West Tripura,

District-West Tripura. 

2). The Chief Manager, 

State Bank of India,

RASMECC, Mantribari Road,

Old RMS Chowmuhani,

Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura.

3). The Manager(Sanction),

State Bank of India,

RASMECC, Mantribari Road,

Old RMS Chowmuhani, 

Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura.

4). The Manager(Maintenance),

State Bank of India, 

RASMECC, Mantribari Road,

Old RMS Chowmuhani,

Agartala ,P.S.-West Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura. ….............Opposite parties. 

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant :  Sri Surajit  Chaudhuri,

   Sri Tanmoy Chakraborty,

  Advocates. 

For the O.P. :  Sri Prabir Saha,

  Sri Diptanu Debnath,

  Advocates.                                                                                                                                  

  

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 28/12/2018

 

J U D G M E N T

The complainants Sri Surajit Chowdhury & others set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 complaining deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. 

  The complainants' case, in brief, is that the Complainants are of same family. The Complainant No.1&2 are the brothers and the Complainant No.3 is their mother. All the Complainants had obtained a loan from the O.Ps. on 11/02/2015 for construction of their residential house by mortgaging their residential plot of land situated at Ramnagar Road No.5, Agartala. Before sanctioning of the loan the complainants' and the O.P. No.3 have entered into an agreement. Pursuant to the agreement home loan was sanctioned for an amount of Rs.16 lac along with Rs.70,000/- as Home Loan  Insurance cover in favour of the Complainants. As per the terms and conditions in the agreement the rate of interest for repayment of the loan was 10.15% P.A., the then prevalent rate. The loan amount would be recovered in 240 installments @Rs.16,700/- per month payable from 01/08/2016 i.e. 18 months after the sanction of the loan. It is also stipulated in the agreement that the rate of interest is subject to revision from time to time due to changes in base rate or without change in base rate. The Bank was however has the option to reduce or increase the EMI or extend the repayment period or both consequent upon the revision in interest rate. The total amount of the loan had been duly disbursed by the O.P. No.3 and the said amount had been credited in 4 phases in the joint S.B. Account of the Complainants vide No.34442072855 from the loan account of the Complainants under Account No.34722266980 on and from 22/02/2015.     

The Complainant have alleged that during the currency of the loan the rate of interest was reduced two times firstly, from 10.15% to 10% and thereafter from 10% to 9.85% and further it was reducing gradually. After receiving the first phase of the loan amount, the complainants started to repay the loan on their own accord by paying @Rs.5,000/-  eleven(11) times and thus Rs.55,000/-(Rs.5,000/- in to 11) was deposited in the account in order to reduce the burden of loan. The complainants also stated in their complaint that when the repayment of loan begins they noticed that the O.P. No.3 had debited Rs.18,500/- per month w.e.f. 01/08/2015 in 19 installments instead of Rs.16,700/- as stipulated in the agreement. The O.Ps. have failed to give explanation when the Complainant No.1 raised this matter and sought for clarification. The complainants further alleged that the O.P. No.4 had intimated the Complainant No.1 that the Complainants could opt for fixing the rate of interest at their own choice and that if it was so fixed once then fluctuation of rate of interest would not happen and that for getting this facility the Complainants had to pay Rs.11,500/- as service charge. As suggested by the O.P. No.4 the Complainants had instructed the O.P. No.4 to deduct Rs.11,500/- from the savings account of the Complainants in order to fix the rate of interest at 8.40% w.e.f. 14/06/2017. The Complainants noticed that though the O.P. No.4 had debited Rs.11,500/- from their savings account but the rate of interest had not been fixed at 8.40%. Then the Complainants No.1 submitted a protest letter to the O.P. No.2 on 13/06/2017. The Complainants further alleged that on 03/03/2017, 21/11/2017, 17/01/2018 & 21/02/2018 although the Complainant No.1 had deposited Rs.18,500/- each to the loan account but in the Bank's Statement of account this figure i.e. Rs.18,500/- each did not get reflected rather much less amount were shown in it. 

 

The Complainants have alleged that the O.Ps. committed deficiency in service resulting which they suffered financial loss. The Complainants have thus prayed for issuing orders directing the O.Ps. to reduce monthly installment  and adjust the amount already recovered from them in excess and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3 lac for harassment and sufferings and also Rs.25,000/- as litigation costs..

 

2. The O.Ps. have contested the case of the Complainants by filing Written Statement denying the contentions and claims raised by the Complainants.. The O.Ps. have stated in their written statement that as per standing instruction of the Complainant No.1 dated 11/02/2015 addressed to the Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India, RASMECC, Mantribari Road, Agartala monthly installment for recovering the loan amount was fixed at Rs.18,500/- P.M. w.e.f. the month of August,2016 instead of Rs.16,700/- after the moratorium period was over and that the number of installments was reduced to 222 from 240 installments. The O.Ps. also stated that the complainants were not regularly paying the amount resulting which huge amount had fallen due and it was within their knowledge too. Regarding the alleged letter dated 13/06/2017 of the Complainant No.1, the O.Ps. have submitted that the O.P. No.3 never received any such letter. The O.Ps. however have admitted deduction Rs.11,500/- from the Bank account of the complainants but denied to have deducted the said amount for changing the rate of interest on the loan amount as alleged by the Complainants. As to the allegations of the Complainants that though they had deposited Rs.18,500/- per month and that on four(4) occasions i.e  on 03/03/2017, 21/11/2017, 17/01/2018 & 21/02/2018 the said amount has not been reflected in the statement of account, the O.Ps. have stated in the written statement that on 3rd March, 2017 the amount Rs.18,500/- as deposited by the Complainants had been shown in the statement of account in two parts i.e. Principal amount Rs.6,206/- and interest as Rs.12,294/- so in total the amount comes to Rs.18,500/- . Similarly on 21/11/2017 the amount Rs.18,500/- so recovered from the Complainants had been shown in the statement of account as Rs.4,406(Principal amount) & Rs.14,094 had been transferred to the SBI Life, thus total amount comes to Rs.18,500/-. On 17/01/2018 also the amount Rs.17,691/- had been shown in the loan account and Rs.809/- in the SBI Life Account and in similar way on 21/02/2018 the deductions were made. The O.Ps. further stated in the W.S. that the Complainants in total have deposited Rs.3,69,500/- against the loan account instead of Rs.4,36,234/- as asserted by the Complainants. The O.Ps. have denied to recover any excess amount from the Complainants.. The O.Ps. have asserted that  there is no deficiency of service on their part towards the Complainants, rather the Complainants 

 

are at fault in repaying the loan amount. The O.Ps. have thus prayed for rejecting the complaint filed against them by the Complainants. 

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:

  In support of their case the Complainant No.1 Sri Surajit Chowdhury has examined himself  as PW-1. He has produced five(05) documents along with his complaint as documentary evidence viz:- copy of the loan agreement dated 11/02/2015, copy of the Bank statement of the loan account No.34722266980, copy of Bank pass book of joint savings account No.34442072855, copy of the Bank slips & copy of letter dated 13/06/2017. 

 

On behalf of the O.Ps. one defence witness was examined namely Sri Samiran Saha, Manager Maintenance. He has produced some documentary evidence namely deed of undertaking in respect of loan account No.34722266980, copies of Letters, copy of standing instruction given by Sri Surajit Chowdhury, Agreement letter & Bank statement. 

 

 POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

4.  Based on the contentions raised by both the parties the following issues are made for determination:  

   (I). Whether  there was a any deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. towards the Complainants?

      (ii).  Whether the Complainants are entitled to get compensation ?

 

 

 

5. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

  It is admitted and establish fact that the Complainants had obtained home loan from the O.Ps. after observing all legal formalities. The O.Ps. have also disbursed the full amount of loan including the amount meant for SBI Life Insurance cover in the S.B. Joint Account of the Complainants. It is also established that before commencement of recovery of the loan amount, the Complainant out of their own volition deposited Rs.55,000/- in 11 installment @ Rs.55,000/- in the loan account. The Complainants have contended that as per loan agreement the loan amount including interest is to be recovered in 240 installments @Rs.16,700/- per month but the complainant noticed that instead of Rs.16,700/- the O.Ps. had resorted to recover the loan amount @Rs.18,500/- per month keeping the Complainants in dark. Moreover the number of installment had been reduced to 222 from 240. 

 

  It is evident from the W.S. and oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the witness of the O.Ps. that due to availing the benefits of moratorium period of 18 months by the Complainants as per the terms and conditions of the agreement the number of installments for recovery of the loan amount has been reduced to 222 from 240(240-18=222). Moreover, the Complainant No.1 had given a written standing instruction dated 21/02/2015 to the Asstt. Manager, State Bank of India, RASMECC, Agartala authorizing him to debit Rs.18,500/- per month by way of installments w.e.f. August,2016 till closer of the loan account. This standing instruction issued by the Complainant No.1 has been brought on record as documentary evidence by the witness of the O.Ps. From the case record it reveals that the oral evidence tendered by the witness of the O.Ps. on 26/07/2018 remained uncontroverted as the complainants did not take any step on that date for cross examining the said witness. It also transpires from the complaint filed by the Complainant that the Complainants did not state in the complaint that the standing instruction dated 21/02/2015 had been obtained by the O.Ps. from the Complainant No.1 forcefully or by exercising undue influence. So we are satisfied that the Complainant No.1 has voluntarily issued the standing instruction dated 21/02/2015 in order to authorize the O.P. No.3 to debit Rs.18,500/- per month as installment till closer of the loan account. 

 

6. After examining the Statement of Loan Account furnished by both sides we have noticed that till filing of this case Rs.3,69,500/- i.e. (Rs.18,500/- X 17= Rs.3,14,500/-) & (Rs.5,000/- X 11 = Rs.55,000/-) has been recovered from the Complainants. We do not find any excess amount having been deducted from the S.B. Account of the Complainants except deduction of Rs.11,500/-. The O.Ps. has failed to give any proper explanation for deduction Rs.11,500/- from the joint account of the Complainants. 

 

7.    In view of the discussion made above we find and hold that the Complainants have failed to establish their complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.Ps. as we do not find deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. to the Complainants. The O.Ps. however is directed to adjust Rs.11,500/- with the loan account of the Complainants with admissible interest within one month from today. 

We accordingly dismiss the Complaint filed by the Complainants. 

There is no order as to costs. 

 

ANNOUNCED

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

 WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.