Date of filing: 26.06.2018
Judgment date: 30.11.2022
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This complaint is filed by the complainant Shri Sudeep Koley and Smt. Debashree Koley U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party (referred as O.P. hereinafter) namely Branch Manager, State Bank of India, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.
The case the complainants in short is that they borrowed home loan of Rs. 19,08,000/- from the O.P. on 30/03/2011. They also availed home loan insurance of Rs. 69,000/- which was to be deducted from the salary account of the complainant (1) Sudeep Koley. The complainants have paid full loan amount and the O.P. bank has also issued a no dues certificate in favour of the complainant on 25/01/2018. But the opposite party has kept the bank account of the mother of the complainant no. (1) Which is also a joint account with the complainant Sudeep Koley ‘on hold’ for not paying Rs. 48,437/- towards home loan insurance. No notice was served before keeping on hold the said account. The premium towards said insurance coverage was to be deducted from the salary account of the complainant Sudeep Koley but the OPs did not deduct the insurance premium from the said salary account which is deficiency on the part of O.P. No dues certificate has not been issued to the complainant in respect of the said home loan insurance. A notice was sent by complainants through their Ld. Advocate to withdraw the order of keeping the account of the mother of the complainant on hold. But since it was not done, the present complaint has been filed by the complainants praying for directing the O.P. to remove the on hold order or withdraw the said on hold order in respect of the account of the complainant Sudeep Koley and his mother, to direct the O.P. to pay compensation @ 12% p.a. till the on hold order is withdrawn or removed and to pay the cost of litigation.
O.P. has contested the case by filing the written version denying and disputing the allegation contending inter-alia that the complainant paid back the home loan but suraksha insurance was not paid by the complainants as such O.P. did not issue no dues certificate in respect Suraksha Insurance Account. The complainants remained silent when no deduction of EMI of the SBI Suraksha Account was done from the salary account of the complainant Sudeep Koley. Various mails were sent to the complainant to close the suraksha account but the complainant did not want to sort out the problems. So the O.P. has prayed for dismissal of the case.
During the course of trial both parties filed their respective examination in chief followed by filing of questionnaire and reply thereto. Ultimately BNA has been filed by both the parties and also arguments has been advanced.
Following points requires determination:-
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
- Whether the complainants are entitled to the relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASON
Both the points being inter related are taken up together for discussion in order to avoid repetition. In this case it is admitted fact that home loan was taken by the complainants and that has already been paid back to the bank and accordingly a no dues certificate has also been issued. However, the main disputes between the parties are that the premium towards home loan insurance has not been paid by the complainants, which according to the complainants happened due to the fault on the part of the O.P. as bank in spite of the direction to deduct the EMI/Premium from the salary account of the complainant Sudeep Koley, O.P. did not deduct the same. Admittedly a sum of Rs. 48,437/- is due to be paid by the complainant towards the said home loan insurance policy. The complainants in this case have prayed for withdrawal or removal of order regarding keeping the account of the complainant Sudeep Koley with his mother ‘on hold’. But on a careful scrutiny of the written arguments filed by both the parties, it appears that O.P. has categorically stated that during the pendency of this case, complainants paid all dues regarding loan they availed and the order of keeping account of the complainant with his mother ‘on hold’ has already been removed. The same also find reflection in the argument filed by the complainants wherein they have also admitted that they have paid the amount due towards the insurance coverage of Rs. 48,437/- along with penalty on 31.07.2019 and O.P. Bank thereafter has withdrawn ‘on hold’ order from the joint account of complainants Sudeep Koley and his mother being Account No. 30641095559. However, complainant sought to suggest that they were forced to pay the said due amount towards the insurance. Be that as it may since the relief sought for by the complainants in the complaint was for directing the O.P. to withdraw the ‘on hold’ order of the account of his mother with him which has already been removed or withdrawn, no further order in this regard is required to be passed and the said relief at this stage becomes infractuous. Complainants however have also prayed for passing an order to pay compensation of 12% p.a. but the said relief is vague. However it may also be pertinent to point out that it is true that the bank ought to have deducted the premium / EMI towards home loan insurance / suraksha insurance from the salary account of the complainant Sudeep Koley which has not been done by the O.P. bank, but at the same time it was also an obligation on the part of the complainants to pay the EMI/Premium towards the said insurance and when it was not deducted, the complainants ought to have knowledge about the same but nothing was done by the complainants towards the payments. In such a situation, since already the on hold order is removed as discussed above, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Hence
ORDERED
CC/379/2018 is dismissed on contest.
