Hon’ble Mr. Sudip Niyogi, President

The fact of the instant complaint case in brief is that the Complainant has a Savings Bank Account with Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Rajarhat Branch, Cooch Behar, herein the OP.  On 19.09.12, he took a loan of Rs.3 lakh for a term of 5 years and the amount of monthly installment (EMI) was Rs.6,843/- and his loan Account No. was 4001021530002258.  It is alleged by the Complainant that even after the payment of last EMI on 01.10.17, the OP continued deducting the amount of EMI.  The OP did not respond to his application in this regard.  As a result, the claimant made an application with the Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Cooch Behar Regional Office, but the OP was found to be not sincere enough to settle the matter and ultimately, the Complainant was compelled to file this complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for several reliefs in the form of an order for repayment of Rs.25,617/- and Rs.75,000/- for compensation towards mental pain, agony, harassment and litigation cost.

The OP appeared and contested the case by filing w/v, evidence on affidavit and written argument. Besides the usual denial of Complainant’s allegation, the OP admitted the loan agreement with the Complainant.  However, the OP contended that previously the component of EMI was calculated manually using Calculator and was considered upto 02 digit approximation after decimal but subsequently, System was upgraded in 2011 and the component of EMI was started to be calculated via System and this caused some difference in component due to higher level of calculation capability of system considering all digit after decimal.  The System calculated EMI stood at Rs.7058/- instead of manually calculated EMI of Rs.6843/-. So, according to the OP there are outstanding dues which is still remain unpaid and the Bank has no other option but to proceed as per law for realization of the outstanding amount.  Hence, the OP prayed for dismissal of the instant case of the Complainant.

POINTS  FOR  CONSIDERATION

1. Is the Complainant a Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
3. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as alleged?
4. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point No.1 and 2.

Though in the written statement and evidence on affidavit, the OP raised the question about maintainability of the complaint, in fact, during argument this point was not agitated. The Complainant is, no doubt, a consumer within the term as defined under CP Act, 1986.

The Complainant is a resident of Cooch Behar and the Office of the OP is located within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Therefore, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within the pecuniary limit of this Forum.  Thus, these points are disposed of in favour of the Complainant.

Point No.3 and 4.

From the materials on record and the argument submitted by both the parties, it is found that admittedly the Complainant had taken loan of Rs. 3 lakh from the OP Bank and the loan agreement was entered into between the parties on 19.02.12.  The said amount of loan would carry interest @ 14.5% to be repaid by 60 monthly installments over a period of 5 years.  The amount of each installment i.e. EMI would be Rs.6483/- to be deducted from the salary Account of the Complainant with the OP Bank on and from 01.10.12.

Now, the grievance of the Complainant is that even after payment of 60th installment, the OP continued deducting the amount of EMI from his salary Account and this way already two extra EMIs were realized.  Not only that, the Bank kept Rs.19,549/- as lien and the Complainant is not being able to withdraw the said amount.

On the other hand, the contentions of the OP as argued by the Ld. Agent on their behalf is that though EMI which was agreed to be deducted from his salary Account on and from 01.10.12 but no EMI could be deducted in the month of October, 2012 as sufficient balance was not available in the Account of the Complainant.  As a result, the total amount of  loan was increased.  The EMI was deducted from the month of November, 2012.

His second argument is that previously the calculation would be made manually and with the up-gradation of the system in 2011, calculation is made from precisely after decimal and therefore, the amount of EMI, which was originally determined/fixed at Rs.6843/- was increased to Rs.7058/-.  As the EMI was deducted all through @Rs.6843/- and after 60^th EMI, extra amount arising out of precise calculation after up-gradation, necessitated further deduction of the amount of EMI at the old rate.  That is the reason for taking extra EMIs.  It is admitted that 2 extra EMIs were realized after completion of 60^th EMI but the Bank’s claim is found to be not equal to the amount of the said 2 extra EMI.  For that reason, a sum of Rs.19,549/- has been kept in lien.  During hearing, it has not been made clear on behalf of the OP Bank actually how much more amount they require in order to liquidate the entire dues from the Complainant in connection with the loan agreement in question.

It is true that EMI could not be deducted from the month of October, 2012 as there was no sufficient fund in the Account of the Complainant.  However, EMI was started to be deducted from November, 2012 though the amount of loan of Rs.3 lakh was disbursed in the month of September, 2012.  So, there may be some justification in the claim of the OP Bank for extra amount, as EMI could not be realized in October, 2012.  But so far as the second contentions of the OP Bank regarding change in the amount of EMI after up-gradation of the system cannot be accepted for the reason discussed herein below.

From the  papers submitted on behalf of the OP Bank including written argument, it is found that up-gradation in the system was made in the year 2011 while the loan agreement with the Complainant was made in September, 2012, which is quite well after the so- called up-gradation of the system. So, the contention as to the increase in the amount of EMI arises out of subsequent up-gradation in the system having the capacity of more precise calculation does not arise at all in this case.

Even,  if for the sake of argument, it is taken that actual amount of EMI was increased with the application of up-graded system, the question arises why the said up-graded system was not applied in calculation of the amount of EMI of the Complainant, particularly, when the loan was admittedly taken long after the system was introduced or up-graded.  No explanation is forthcoming from the OP in this regard. 

Again, in that case also, we find that the OP did not bother to inform the Complainant that his actual amount of EMI would Rs.7058/- in place of Rs.6843/-.  Instead, the OP is found to have kept mum althrough and went on realizing @Rs.6843/- as EMI till the 60^th installment was realized and thereafter, again went on deducting the same amount of EMI from the Account of the Complainant without informing him.  This conduct of the OP is not only whimsical but also erratic. The OP could have informed the Complainant at the earliest that the actual amount of EMI would be more than the amount which was being deducted and the EMI at the new rate, they could have realized from the very beginning.  Naturally, the realization of the extra EMIs etc. came to the Complainant as a surprise.

So, we think, there are sufficient grounds for the Complainant feeling aggrieved and he is entitled to reliefs in this case.  We feel, it would be justified to pass an order directing the OP to refund the amount of one EMI out of 2 taken extra i.e. Rs.6843/- with interest in view of the non-realisation of the EMI due in October, 2012.  The OP should also be directed to withdraw the lien in respect of the amount of Rs.19,549/-if the said amount is not needed in respect of any other loan Account from the Complainant.

These issues are thus decided infavour of the Complainant.

Hence, it is

Ordered

That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.

The OP is directed to refund the amount of one EMI out of 2 taken extra i.e. Rs.6843/- alongwith interest @ 8% thereon in view of the non-realisation of the EMI due in October, 2012.

The OP is further directed to withdraw the lien in respect of the amount of Rs.19,549/- if the said amount is not needed in respect of any other dues/loan from the Complainant and the Complainant is also entitled to interest on the said amount at the prevailing rate on Term Deposit.

The OP is also directed to pay Rs.6,000/- to the Complainant for mental pain, agony, harassment and Rs.3,000/- for litigation cost. 

The OP is directed to comply with the aforesaid order within one month from the date of this order, failing which the entire awarded sum shall carry interest @ 6% per annum till realization. 

Let plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action, if any. The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website: www.confonet.nic.in.