DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 44 of 2018

 

Sri Atindra Barman,

S/O. Late Manmohan Barman,

Resident of Narsingarh, South Bagadi,

P.O. -Narayanpur, P.S.-Airport, Agartala,

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

 

 

       VERSUS

 

1. The Branch Manager,

Tripura Gramin Bank,

Narsingarh Branch,

District-West Tripura-799015.

 

2. The General Manager, Head Office, 

Tripura Gramin Bank,

Abhoynagar, Agartala

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799005. ......................... 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 Kajal Nandi,

  Advocate.  

For the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 : Sri Tapan Kumar Modak,

  Advocate.  

 

                                                                                                                                 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 21/02/2019

J U D G M E N T

The complainant Sri Atindra Barman, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 complaining deficiency of service by the O.Ps. 

  The complainant's case in brief is that the complainant while working as a Group-D staff in TIT, Narsingarh, Agartala had applied for a loan for house repairing purpose to the O.P. No.-I, the Branch Manager, Gramin Bank, Narsingarh, Agartala and that as per his prayer, the O.P. had sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 25/02/2011. The loan amount was disbursed in two phases with condition that the loan amount along with interest @10% will be recovered by EMI @ Rs.3224/-P.M. within five (05) years. The loan was sanctioned on the basis of personal guarantee executed of the loanee and the DDO Certificate of the loanee. The complainant has stated in his complaint that after six(06) years of repayment of the loan and on his superannuation he had approached the O.P. No.I for obtaining loan clearance certificate. The Bank Authority informed him that he had still outstanding amount of Rs.10,000/- against the said loan account. The Complainant alleged that on 29/06/2018 he had filed representation before the O.P. No.I for loan clearance certificate against his loan A/C No.8043302100058. But the O.P. No.I did not make any response to his representation . He has thus filed the present complaint before this Forum alleging deficiency of ;service and causing mental harassment by the O.Ps.  

The O.Ps. have contest the case by filing written statement and have denied deficiency of service on their part. The O.Ps.  however have admitted disbursement of loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the Complainant under HBL Scheme. According to the O.P.s. the loan was sanctioned on the basis of personal guarantee furnished by the Complainant and a certificate dated 09/02/2011 issued by the DDO of the Complainant. The O.Ps. also stated in their W.S. that the Complainant has not complied with the terms and conditions in respect of repayment of the loan. He used to repay the loan amount whimsically as per his desire defying the terms and conditions of the loan. He had repaid part amount of the loan w.e.f. the month of February,2017 to July, 2017 on a variety of amount and thereafter he again started to repay the loan w.e.f. March, 2013 to October, 2016 @Rs.3300/- per month and that he had stopped repayment of loan amount w.e.f. November,2016 to till the date though he had outstanding amount to the tune of Rs.8,063/- as on 25/10/2016. 

The O.Ps. have asserted in their W.S. that they had intimated the Complainant and requested him to repay the balance amount against his loan amount but the Complainant did not pay any hid to it. 

The O.Ps. denying any deficiency of service having been committed by them towards the complainant have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

2. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:

In support of the Complaint, the Complainant has Examined himself as PW-1 and produced 04 documents namely Bank Statement in respect of his loan account No.8043302100058 of TGB & his three(03) original Pass Books of TGB. The documents are marked  Exhibit-I series. 

On behalf of the O.Ps. one witness namely Sri Ratan Lal Saha, Branch Manager, TGB, Narsingarh Branch has been examined. The said witness has adduced two documents namely photocopy of Loan sanction order dated 25/02/2011 along with the Authority letter   & Photocopy of Loan Account statement which have been marked Exhibit-A series. 

 POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

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

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

     (ii). Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any  compensation/relief ?

 

4. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

  It is evident from the case record that there is no denial by the O.Ps. and the Complainant about sanctioning and disbursing of the loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant under HBL Scheme on 25/02/2011 which would be repaid within five (05) years by EMI @Rs.3,224/- P.M. The complainant has alleged that the O.Ps. did not issue him clearance certificate even after repayment of entire loan amount by him and that the O.Ps. had illegally asked him to deposit Rs.10,000/- against the loan amount claiming the amount to be outstanding. The O.Ps. on the other hand have alleged that the complainant was very irregular in respect of repayment of the loan. The complainant did not maintain parity in the amount while repaying the loan amount through installments and consequently an amount of Rs.8,413/- remains outstanding against his loan A/C No.8043302100058. 

The Complainant and the O.Ps. have submitted their written arguments. We have carefully gone through both the written arguments placed before us. 

On consideration of the Exhibited documents filed by the both the parties and on careful consideration of the written arguments we find that an amount of Rs.8,413/- is still pending against the loan amount of the Complainant. This amount being  public dues, the complainant is under legal obligation to repay it.

Accordingly to the O.Ps. the loan was sanctioned based on personal guarantee furnished by the Complainant and Certificate issued by the DDO of the Complainant. It is true that the complainant was not regular in the matter of repayment of the loan. He had chosen to repay the loan as per his convenience and the figures of the amount that had been paid by installments were not uniform. It is a matter of surprise that the O.P. did not take any step for ensuring compliance of the terms and conditions of repayment of the loan and about the manner of repayment of it. So we find that the O.Ps. can not shirk their responsibility for getting the loan amount recovered from the Complainant in time. The O.Ps. according to us have negligence and latches in the matter recovery of the loan amount from the Complainant.

From the case record we find that the Complainant has already retired from Govt. service as a Group-D staff in TIT, Narsingarh, Agartala few years back. We also find that the Complainant did not make his DDO as a party to this case. The O.Ps. also did not adduce any document / paper to prove that they had approached the DDO of the Complainant for getting the loan amount recovered from the salary of the Complainant at any point of time. Even they have not produced any document showing that they had issued any legal notice to the Complainant asking for recovery of the outstanding loan amount.  

In view of discussion made above, we find and hold that the Complainant has partly succeeded in proving his case  U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by him against the O.Ps. 

Since it is established and proved that an amount of Rs.8413/- is still lying outstanding against the loan account of the Complainant and the said amount being public dues and on consideration of the fact that the complainant has already retired from service, we are of the opinion that justice will prevail if a direction is given from the Forum to the Complainant to repay the said outstanding loan amount Rs.8413/- to the O.P. No.I in three(03) equal installments @Rs.2804/-P.M., the 1st installment to be paid within one month from today.

In the result, it is directed that the Complainant shall repay his outstanding loan amount of Rs.8413/- to the O.P. No.I against his loan A/C No.8043302100058 in three (03) equal installment @ Rs.2804/- per month, the 1st installment should be paid within one month from the date of judgment failing which the amount shall carry interest @6% P.A. till the full payment is made. There shall be no order as to costs. 

  It is further directed that the O.Ps. shall issue loan clearance certificate to the Complainant as soon as the repayment of the loan from the Complainant is accomplished. 

 

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.