Orissa

Jharsuguda

CC/62/2018

Kirati Mukhi S/O- Late Ujagar Mukhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, UCO Bank - Opp.Party(s)

P.K. Padhi

19 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 62 OF 2018

Kirati Mukhi ( 56 Yrs.),

S/O: Late Ujagar Mukhi,

     R/O: Qr. No.3/3, Nurses Colony, Durganagar,

     PO: Brajrajnagar,PS: Orient,

     Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha……………………....…………………Complainants.

     

Versus

 

1. Branch Manager, UCO Bank,

Orient Colliery Branch, Brajrajnagar,PS: Orient,

Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha.

 

2. Chief Officer(BH),UCO Bank,

Zonal Office,18/1,Ainthapali Road,Sambalpur,

PS: Ainthapali, Dist: Sambalpur, Odisha……………..…………Opp. Parties.

 

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                                P.K.Padhi, Adv. & Associates.                     

For the Opp. Party                                  Abdul Zalil,Adv. & Associates.

 

Date of Order: 19.09.2018

Present

1. Shri Sundar Lal Behera, President.

                                                                                  2. Shri Santosh Kumar Ojha, Member.

                                                                                  3. Smt. Anamika Nanda, Member(W).

 

Shri S.L. Behera, President :-   The brief facts of the complaint case are that, the complainant an employee of MCL IB Vally Area, Brajrajnagar having saving Bank Account with the O.P.No.1 Branch, availed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- only as personal loan from O.P.No.1 on execution loan agreement dtd.01.12.2010 @ 10.90% interest per annum, repayable at on 84 nos. of EMIs. i.e. Rs.8,535/- only per month commencing from dt.31.01.2011.  On the basis of said agreement taking into consideration of the approval letter of his employer, the O.P.No.1 Bank agreed to repayment of loan in 84 nos. of monthly installments at the rate of Rs.8,550/- only to be repaid from dt.20.11.2010 onwards within 84 month from the commencement of the loan repayment i.e. dtd.05.01.2011.  The complainant started depositing the monthly installment amount of Rs.8,550/- only on dtd.05.01.2011 in the account of O.P.No.1 Bank from the salary account of the complainant laying with the O.P.No.1 Bank.  As per the statement of the O.P.No.1 duly maintained from dt.01.02.2010 till dated 30.06.2018 it can be seen that the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.7,41,050/- only against his loan.  The said account statement provided by the O.P.No.1 Bank shows that the Bank has realized a sum of Rs.22,850/- only in excess then the amount to be realized in 84 nos. of installments @ Rs.8,550/- only per month which comes to Rs.7,18,200/- only.  The said account statement has made it clear that beyond the tenure of the repayment, the O.P.No.1 Bank had accepted six number of installment till dt.05.06.2018.  However as per the said statement of account outstanding balance to be paid by the complainant has been shown to be Rs.1,00,178/- only as on dtd.30.06.2018.  According to the complainant after payment of 84 nos. of monthly installments regularly in every month on the basis of deduction of Rs.8,550/- only from his salary account and after realization of entire 84 nos. of installments , the O.P.No.1’s demand for more amount then the agreed amount, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.1 Bank, who further claims to have paid more than the amount to be realized in 84 nos. of monthly installments.  On the other hand the O.P.No.1 Bank claims to have charge extra amount  of Rs.1,42,926/- only till Decembder,2017 due to increase in the rate of interest on different occasion  during the currency of loan of agreement. The O.P.No.1 Bank has also contents that due to default of complainant to pay the EMIs. On regular basis in the month of March,2013 and July,2014 it has charge penal interest though it was agreed that the complainant was liable to pay the EMIs. on the first day of every succeeding English Calendar month. It therefore claim a sum of Rs.1,00,178/- only till June,2018 with future interest require for liquidation of the loan, thereby denied to have rendered any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in respect to the complainant.          

 

            The O.Ps. appeared after being noticed through his advocate and filed written version. To established the claim relating to increase in the rate of interest on different occasion during the currency of the loan agreement, nothing has been produced so as to reach to the conclusion that in fact rate of interest had been increased during the tenure of the loan.  Even no notification of RBI has been filed.  Copies of the agreement produced by the O.P.No.1 Bank clearly reflects that the loan granted to the complainant had to be repayable in 84 nos. of EMIs. @ Rs.8,535/- only per month commencing from dtd.31.01.2011.  The said agreement also shows that the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- only granted to the complainant carries an interest at the rate of 10.90% per annum.  Accordingly basis on the rate of interest taking into consideration of the numbers of EMIs. fixed and also taking into consideration the tenure of the repayment of 84 months it was agreed to repay the entire loan with interest within the tenure at the rate of Rs.8,550/- only as monthly loan installment.  As the loanee who avails Bank loan from the Bank they are not supposed to know that technic of calculation made by the Bank.  They only know that they have to pay the numbers of installment amount regularly within the tenure of repayment.  In this case also, as narrated above the complainant had been depositing the monthly installment of Rs.8,550/- only in every month and the amounts were deducted from his monthly salary and in this way he had paid a sum of Rs.7,41,050/- only reveals from the transaction enquiry under deposit head.  Now we have to calculate the amount required to be paid by the complainant in 84 installments @ Rs.8,550/- only per month amounts comes to Rs.7,18,200/- only against Rs.7,18,200/- only the complainant had deposited Rs.22,850/- only in excess.  The said amount of Rs.22,850/- only which is paid by the complainant should have been refunded to the complainant after closing the loan account.  But instead of doing that the O.P.No.1 Bank is demanding Rs.1,00,178/- only due to fault calculation of interest rate which is not proved, due to wants of valid documentary evidence.  We, therefore think it wise to hold the said demand to be unauthorized.  The O.P.No.1 Bank shall not claim the amount shows as balance as on dtd.30.06.2018 shown in the transaction enquiry.  As, when the matter is apparent that Rs.22,850/- only has been realized by the O.P.No.1 Bank in excess is liable to be refund.

            As per the above discussion and observation made by us and taking into consideration of the documentary evidence produce by the parties, on contest, we held O.P.No.1 Bank to have rendered deficiency in service in respect to the complainant due its abnormal and unauthorized demand.  We allowed the complaint.  The O.P.No.1 bank shall refund a sum of Rs.22,850/- ( Rupees twenty two thousand eight hundred and fifty) only to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- Rupees ten thousand) only towards compensation, mental agony, harassment cause to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  The O.P.NO.1 bank is also directed not to insist for any amount to the complainant and to issue No Dues Certificate(NOC) against the loan within the above stated time period. 

Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today the 19^th day of September’ 2018. Free copy of this order be communicated to the concerned parties as per rule.

                                           I Agree.                                      I Agree.                                                                                           

                                         

                                              A.  Nanda, Member( W)         S.K.Ojha, Member        S. L. Behera, President  

                                                                Dictated and corrected by me

 

       S. L. Behera, President