Tripura

Unakoti

CC/15/7

Sri Asim Kr. Bhattacharjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, UBI, Kailashahar & Another - Opp.Party(s)

Self

30 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM

(DISTRICT FORUM)

NORTH TRIPURA : KAILASHAHAR

 

C A S E NO. C. C. 15/07

 

SHRI ASHIM KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE

of Kajirgaon,

P/S-Kailashahar, Unakoti Tripura District

COMPLAINANT

V E R S U S

 

1. The Branch Manager,

United Bank Of India,

Kailashahar Branch.

1. OPPOSITE PARTY.

 

P R E S E N T

 

SHRI A.K.NATH

PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM

UNAKOTI DISTRICT::KAILASHAHAR

A N D

SMTI. S. DEY, MEMBER

SHRI KISHORE KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the complainant : Self.

 

For the OP : Shri S.P. Datta Purkyastha, Advocate

 

ORIGINAL DATE OF INSTITUTION :28-05-2015

 

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON :30-11-2017

 

J U D G M E N T

 

This is a complaint preferred by the complainant Shri Ashim Kumar Bhattacharjee against the opposite party for deficiency in service in deduction of loan amount and sufferings meted to the complainant because of the whimsical action on the part of the opposite party.

 

2. The case of the complainant, as could be gathered from the complaint petition, is that he took loan for an amount of Rs.1,85,000/-(Rupees one lakh eight five thousand only) from the pension scheme from the United Bank of India, but the opposite party deducted the amount of previous loan from the present loan amount. It was stipulated that the loan amount would be recovered by 48 equal EMI with interest as per the rule of the bank. The OP deducted Rs.6800/- as of first installment. Thereafter, the complainant requested the OP to reduce the loan recovery amount and then the OP reduced the loan recovery amount to 4200/-, but at the same time reduced the EMI from 48 to 36/-. According to complainant, his loan was due to be recovered by March, 2015, but in the month of April, 2015, he came to know that balance loan amount due to be paid by him was Rs.1,06,781/-. The complainant stated that the OP realized amount of Rs.1,81,399/- during the period from 06-03-2011 to 02-04-2015 and therefore he could not understand why amount of Rs.1,06,781/- still remained as balance loan amount. When he communicated the Branch Manager and Regional Manager of the bank in respect of such anomaly, he was not given any reply. He also met the bank staff, who told him that as per bank rule he has to pay the balance loan amount of Rs.1,06,781/-. In the complaint petition the complainant also stated that the OP deducted Rs.14,200/- on 01-11-2013 from his account. Similarly the OP deducted excess amount of Rs.2785/- on 18/12/2014. However, on 05/12/2014 the OP returned him an amount of Rs.5,000/-. In this way the OP discharged their duties quite whimsically, as a result of which the complainant suffered both mentally and economically and for this unlawful and negligent activities on the part of the OP, the complainant has sought monetary compensation.

 

3. Notice was issued to the OP, in response to which it appeared through learned Advocate Mr. S.P. Datta Purkyastha and submitted written statement, stating inter-alia that there is no cause of action for this complaint, the complaint and claim are barred by waiver, esotopel and acquiescence, the complainant has no locusstandi to file this complaint which is suppressive of different related facts. It is stated in the written statement that there is/was no unlawful handling of payment of pension and there was no cheating on sanction of loan and deduction of loan amount. Bank did not realize loan in a manner so that realization would not be complied/completed during life time of the complainant. It is admitted by the OP that as per norms recovery would be complied on March, 2015 by 48 EMI. The OP disputed that on 02/04/2015 balance amount was Rs.1,06,781/-. The OP also denied realization of Rs.1,81,399/- upto March, 2015, but realized only Rs.78,210/- from the account of the complainant. It is admitted by the OP that the complainant is a pensioner holding A/C No.0259010111820 in its bank and he was given a loan against his pension benefits from the bank. As per terms and conditions of the loan the complainant was obliged to refund the loan of Rs.1,85,000/-, which was sanctioned in his favour on 08/03/2011. As per the sanction letter dated 08/03/2011, the loan was to be recovered by 36 nos. EMI @ Rs.6400/- and the complainant was to deposit the EMI in time sequence and be punctual without default for avoiding of penal interest of @ 2% p.a on the amount of EMI in arrears for the period of default as per the ''Master Circular of United Bank Personal Loan Scheme for pensioners'' and the machine operating this system of accounting is already set up as such. The loan account of the complainant is 02590268641. It is iterated in the WS by the OP that the standing instruction could only be effected if sufficient balance is there in the S.B A/C of the complainant, but on 01/01/2011, 01/11/2012, 01/12/2012, 01/01/2013, 01/03/2013, 02/04/2013, 02/05/2013, 01/07/2013 and 1/10/2013 i.e., on 11 dates the complainant withdrew the entire pension amount from SB A/C in disregard of the standing instruction, resulting inadequate balance to execute the standing instruction, for which the complainant is now defaulter by Rs.90,000/- approximately inclusive interest upon the defaulted amount of Rs.53,165/-. Till date, i.e., on 01/07/2015, the complainant as borrower has paid Rs.1,77,235/- towards refundment as per the break-up given below:-

Rs.4200/- x 32 times= Rs.1,34,400/-

Rs.4750/- x 7 times = Rs.33,250/-

Rs.6800/- x 1 (one) time= Rs.6,800/-

Rs.2785/- x 1 (one) time= Rs.2,785/-

 

Total- Rs.1,77,235/-

The total due loan amount with interest was Rs.2,30,400/-, out of which the complainant has liquidated Rs.1,77,325/ and thus the balance amount stands at Rs.53,165/, which the complainant is to pay as per the calculation of the OP-bank.

 

4. The complainant submitted his examination-in-chief on affidavit in which he replicates the same version as put in the complaint petition.

 

5. One Shri Rangina Boro has also adduced evidence on behalf of the OP. The complainant and the witness of the opposite party have been cross examined by the either parties.

 

6. The only point for determination in this case is to whether the complainant has been disserviced by the OP-bank in sanctioning and deducting loan amount from the account of the complainant and whether the OP-bank is deficient in rendering service to the complainant?

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

 

7. We have consulted the exhibits produced in this case by the complainant and the OP-bank as well. In the cross examination the complainant admitted that he applied for loan by following the norms of the bank and still now he abides by the norms. His application was loan against his pension and his wife was the guarantor. The complainant further admitted that he does not dispute the copy of the documents submitted by the OP, marked as Exhibit-A(series). The complainant further stated that he is in agreement with the Annexure-A and Annexure-B of the written statement of the OP, but he stated that there was malpractice in the calculation made by the OP. The complainant in cross further stated that he agrees to the computerized bank statement supplied by the bank. In the cross the complainant further stated that the OP-bank has breached the condition of the loan by making EMI as 36 instead of 48 and the OP-bank made total deduction of more than 40%. In the cross the complainant admitted the Master Circular of the bank about the pension loan and also admitted that as per loan agreement EMI was Rs.6400/-. The complainant while being cross examined by the OP specifically stated that he knows that in case of default in payment by overdrawal there is provision of 2% of penal interest to be imposed.

The OP No.1 was cross examined by the complainant. OP No.1 denied that the bank is following the guideline of the Master Circular of UBI, except one in respect of grant of pension loan. OP No.1 voluntarily stated that circular keeps changing and previously it was 12 times monthly gross pension and also subject to maximum limit of Rs.2,00,000/-. OP No.1 denied that they did not follow the guideline in this case, i.e. maximum number of 48 installments, 40% deduction of the pension and the rate of interest of 13% until liquidation of the loan and this was also covered by sanction memo. OP No.1 in cross examination stated that master circular submitted by them was active in the year 2011 and further stated that as per RBI guideline they can deduct installment from defaulting loanee.

 

8. From Exhibit-B, i.e. transactions inquiry in respect of the A/C No.0259010111820 maintained against the loan amount of the complainant, it is found that the complainant was granted loan amounting to Rs.1,85,000/- on 08/03/2011. Exhibit-B reveals that on the same day the complainant transferred an amount of Rs.1,29,000/- and thereby in the account an amount of Rs.56,943/- was left. An amount of Rs.2,411/- was deducted from the loan account of complainant as processing charge. On 02/05/2011 loan installment of Rs.4200/- was deducted. On 01/06/2011, 01/07/2011, 1/8/2011, 01/09/2011 the loan installments @ 4200/- was deducted from the account of the complainant. Exhibit-B further reveals that on 28/09/2011 and 29/09/2011 the complainant withdrew Rs.9,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively. On 02/11/2011 the complainant again withdrew an amount of Rs.9500/-. Exhibit-B reveals that on several dates the complainant had already withdrawn big amount from his SB A/C in disregard to the standing instruction, resulting in inadequate balance in the SB account of the complainant, for which he is defaulter by Rs.90,000/- and the last date of re-payment was 31/10/2014. From Annexure-B (details of payment of loan EMI No.0259306818641 in respect of the complainant), submitted by the OP, to which the complainant did not disagree, it is found that complainant has liquidated total amount of Rs.1,77,235/- w.e.f. 02/04/2011 to 01/07/2015. Annexure-B further shows that bank could not realize the loan amount from the account of the complainant on 01/10/2011, 01/07/2012, 01/11/2012, 01/12/2012, 01/01/2013, 01/02/2013, 01/03/2013, 02/05/2013, 01/07/2013, 01/08/2013 and 01/10/2013 because of insufficient balance in the account of the complainant. From Exhibit-A(series) (129 sheets) (matter of undertaking to deduct monthly installment) tendered by the complainant to the Manager, UBI, Kailashahar Branch, it is found that the complainant has authorized the bank to deduct Rs.6400/- every month from his pension account No.11820 lying in the said bank till the loan is fully liquidated. It is further undertaken by the complainant that this authority could not be changed or revoked till the loan amount is fully liquidated. However, on verbal request of the complainant the EMI was reduced to Rs.4200/-. From Exhibit-A(series) (loan processing sheet, personal loan for the pensioners) it is found that complainant was recommended for sanction of loan under the scheme the sum of Rs.1,85,000/- as per the terms and conditions stipulated below:-

a) Interest- at the rate of 14.2% P.A on diminishing balance at monthly rest. The rate of interest will remain unchanged for the entire period of loan.

b) Re-payment- the loan shall be re-paid by 36 EMIs starting from April 2011 and the entire loan shall be fully re-paid within April, 2014.

As narrated above, the complainant did not keep enough money in his bank account and as such, the bank could not realize the loan amount from the complainant and naturally because of the default of the complainant in re-payment of the loan, the complainant had to bear the penal interest besides stipulated interest of 14.2% and thus, this Forum does not find any deficiency on the part of the OP in sanctioning the loan or deducting the loan amount from the Savings A/C of the complainant.

The issue is decided accordingly. ORDER

 

9. In the result, the complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merit and consequently it stands dismissed. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the OP.

However, considering the fact that the complainant is a pensioner and senior citizen we pass the following direction:-

The OP-bank is directed to work out the loan account of the complainant and on calculation, if any amount is found to be unliquidated by the complainant, complainant is to be given ample opportunity to liquidate the amount on payment of the installments @ Rs. 3000/- per month beyond the terms and conditions, as stipulated in the loan sanction memo.

 

10. With this observation and direction, the case stands disposed of.

 

11. Furnish copy of this judgment to the complainant and OP-bank free of cost.

ANNOUNCED

(A.K. NATH)

PRESIDENT

 

(KISHORE KR. GHOSH) (S. DEB)

MEMBER MEMBER