Tripura

West Tripura

CC/52/2016

Smt. Debanjana Dev Barman. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India & 2 others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. T.Chakraborty.

22 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 52 of 2016 

Smt. Debanjana Dev Barman,
W/O- Sri Rajib Dutta,
Dhaleswar, near Water Supply Road,
Kalyani, Agartala, West Tripura.            ...…..…...Complainant.

     VERSUS

1. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
ONGC Colony Branch,
P.O. - ONGC, Agartala,
West Tripura.

2. RASMACC & SARC,
Represented by the AGM,
State Bank of India,
Corporate House,
4, Mantribari Road,
Agartala, West Tripura.

3. Sri Santanu Kumar Kar,
Recovery Agent,
RASMACC & SARC,
Corporate House,
4, Mantribari Road,
Agartala, West Tripura.            ..............Opposite parties.

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
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 Tanmoy Chakraborty,
                          Advocate.

    For the O.P. No.1             : None appeared.

For the O.P. No. 2 & 3        : Sri Prabir Saha,
                      Sri Diptanu Debnath,
                      Sri Biswanath Majumdar,
                      Advocates.

 

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  22.11.2016

J U D G M E N T

        This case is filed by one Debanjana Debarman U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner case in short is that on 11.02.13 she had purchased one personal car on higher purchase  agreement from ONGC Colony Branch of SBI. ONGC colony Branch agreed to finance Rs.2,40,000/- which is to be paid in 72 installments with monthly installments Rs.4,501/-. While paying installments husband of the complainant met serious fire Accident. She had spent Rs.25 lakhs for treatment purpose. Therefore, she could not pay monthly installments. She faced serious problem and talked with the O.P. financier and paid some amount. But suddenly on 04.06.16 one Santanu Kar along with other recovery agent forcefully entered into her house harassed her and her husband and taken away original key of the car. The recovery agent demanded Rs.4,500/- as their 'REPO' charges and insulted. Complainant deposited Rs.14,000/- thereafter. 40 installments already paid but original key was not delivered. Petitioner therefore prayed for compensation amounting to Rs.4 lakhs for harassment, Rs.5 lakhs for house trespass, damage to car and social status dignity Rs.15 ,000/- for cost of proceeding.
        
        O.P. No.2 and 3 RASMAC & SARC and Santanu Kar filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated that recovery agent did not demand any amount. Borrower failed to pay the amount. As per terms and conditions. O.P. therefore prayed for giving direction to the complainant to pay Rs.1,46,117/- + interest. 

        O.P. No.1, SBI Branch Manager did not appear to contest the case.
        
        On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination;

        (I)Whether the  petitioner was harassed  without any cause and suffered due to deficiency of service by O.P.?
        (II)Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the compensation as claimed?
        
        Petitioner produced the documents relating to purchase of car, bank statement, discharge certificate of hospital, RBI's guideline, bank statement, copy of letter. 

        Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit on witness i.e., the statement of the complainant and her husband. 
        
        Respondent side on the other hand produced the copy of loan agreement, copy of letter. Respondent side also produced the statement on affidavit of one witnesses, Chief  Manager.

         On the basis of  all these evidence on record we shall now determine the points.

    Findings and decision:

        We have gone through the loan agreement and other relating papers. It is admitted and established fact that the complainant had taken loan of Rs.2,40,000/- on purchasing a GM Chevrolet Spark vehicle by creating mortgage from ONGC colony Branch of SBI. As per terms and conditions the bank, its agent and nominee is entitled to enter into the place of hypothicated vehicle in default of payment and is authorized to take possession. It is also found that the O.P. had given notice to the petitioner when she failed to repay the installments. The amount turned into NPA with effect from 08.11.15. But it is surprising that after declaring NPA Rs.16,000/- was taken by the O.P. from the petitioner. We have gone through the statement of account obtained from the state bank of India. From the statement of account it is revealed that sometime Rs.5,000/- sometimes Rs.4600/- was being paid  regularly from 2013, 2014, 2015. Balance was shown Rs.1,63,532/- after interest calculation. Petitioner also admitted that she was defaulter. Debanjana Dev barman wrote a letter to the Branch Manager on 30.06.16 requesting to give 3 months time to to repay the loan amount after calculating the EMI. It is established from the medical documents as produced that her husband suffered burnt injury and she was in a helpless position to pay the installment. Inspite of that O.P. sent recovery agent who as per evidence physically assaulted petitioner using filthy languages and snatched away the original key of the car, threatening them to give a good lesson. 
        
        This consumer court is not supposed to take any decision on the criminal activities of the recovery agent. Petitioner is at liberty to file criminal case which is to be investigated by proper authority to find out the truth. This Forum is only to deal with the matter of compensation if any deficiency of service done. As per terms and condition of the agreement O.P. can send a recovery agent for taking over or possession of the car also enter into the place where the car was kept. But the hiring agents were generally musclemen who sometimes overact. Our Supreme Court in 2007 2 SCC 23 711 discourage this use of this recovery agent.  It is observed  that bank should follow procedure  recognized by  the law to take possession of the vehicle when borrower committed default in payment. Bank will be held vicariously liable for such  unlawful acts of the agents. In this case O.P. admitted that recovery agent was sent but it is admitted that the original key of the vehicle was taken away by the recovery agent. Bank authority declared the account of loanee as NPA on 08.11.15. Notice was given on 21.12.15. In para no- 7 of W.S it is stated that on 4.6.16 the recovery agent had taken away the key of the car. Thereafter on 6.6.16 discussion held. Petitioner assured to repay the amount within 15 days. Some amount was paid as BM has assured to return the key of the vehicle. This type of activity after taking some amount on settlement cannot be appreciated. O.P. has the right to recover the amount after seizure of the vehicle or sale but the harassment and taking away original key is not mentioned in the agreement. This activities therefore appears to be misserivce and can not be encouraged. This is considered as deficiency of service by the State Bank of India. Recovery agent over act on direction of SBI. Caused harassment. This is also not proper service at all. Loanee is  not supposed to be harassed and suffered by the loan giver. During the period she could not run the vehicle but had to pay the installments. 

        But it is fact that she is a defaulter. Harassment  on her is a matter which is to be investigated  for proper punishment of the recovery agent. In this case the RASMECC and SARC are found vicariously liable and they deployed the recovery agent. Therefore, they are to pay compensation to the petitioner who was harassed in the name of recovery.  

        We therefore direct the O.P. to pay compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner, adjust the same and recover the rest amount from the petitioner after final settlement. As per terms of agreement or any relaxation on compromise. Both the points are decided accordingly.

        In view of our above findings over the two points O.P. RASMECC & SARC and Branch Manager of SBI are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner as they are found vicariously liable for the action of recovery agent and thereafter to recover the amount from the complainant, Debanjana Dev Barman and return the original key to the petitioner immediately. Supply copy.   

          
                          Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
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.