Date of filing:      20.05.2019

                                                                                                                                 Date of disposal : 28.03.2023

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                 .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR. B.Sc, B.L.,                                                    ........MEMBER-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.ICWA(Inter),B.L.,                                        ....MEMBER-II

               

 

RBT/CC. No.96/2022

THIS TUESDAY, THE 28th DAY OF MARCH 2023

(CC.No.89/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)

 

Mr. Jason Joseph,

Mrs.Kamala Kumari,

W/o.Mr.Jason Joseph,

both residing at 

No.29, Audiappa Street,

Purasawalkam, Chennai 600 084.                                                        ……Complainant.     

                                                                          //Vs//

1.The Branch Manager,

    SBI, Dr.Alagappa Chettiar Road Branch,

    Dr.Alagappa Chettiar Road,

    Purasawalkam, Chennai 600 007.

 

2.The Branch Manager,

   SBI, Vivekananda House Branch, 

   No.147, Dr.Besant Road,

   Triplicane, Chennai 600 005.                                                     .......Opposite parties. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                            :   M/s.D.Moses Jeyakaran, Advocate.

Counsel for the 1st opposite party                   :   exparte.

Counsel for the 2nd opposite party                  :   M/s.S.Makesh, Advocate.

                         

This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.89/2019 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.96/2022 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 15.03.2023 in the presence of M/s.D.Moses Jeyakaran, Advocate counsel for the complainant and M/s.S.Makesh, Advocate counsel for the 2nd opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both parties, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in withholding the bank account of the 1st complainant for non repayment of Educational Loan availed by the daughter of the complainant along with a prayer to transfer the debited amount of Rs.2,00,000/- into the complainant’s account No.20039064993 maintained with the opposite party and to permit the 1st complainant to withdraw the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from his account and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

The complainants allegation was that the first complainant had a savings bank (pension) account bearing No.20039064993 with the 1st opposite party.  He was a retired Railway pensioner.  The 2nd complainant was a retaired Government Teacher. While she was in service, she had opened a savings bank account with the 2nd opposite party bearing No.10146624779 in Vivekananda House Branch, Triplicane, Chennai. That apart, the 1st complainant and his daughter Ms.J.Annie Priya had an A/c 10146698505 (RA student Loan TL) with the 2nd opposite party.  The 1st complainant had borrowed and deposited Rs.5,20,330/- in his A/c.20039064993 on 18.03.2019 in order to meet out the medical expenses for his heart valve replacement surgery.  On 20.03.2019 when he tried to withdraw the said amount in order to pay his medical bills, he could not withdraw the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- but was permitted to draw only Rs.4,15,000/- only.  When questioned on 21.03.2019 the bank staff of the 1st opposite party told that a sum of 2,00,000/- was blocked and held by the bank under the instructions of the 2nd opposite party.  The complainant tried to meet the 2nd opposite party on 25.03.2019 but in vain.  However, they could meet the 2nd opposite party on 26.03.2019 and wanted to know the reason for not letting the 1st complainant to draw Rs.2,00,000/- lying in his pension account of the 1st opposite party.  There was no proper reply or valid reason given for blocking and holding up of Rs.2,00,000/- by the opposite parties. The 2nd complainant took an educational loan in the year 2004-2014 (10 year period) for her daughter from the 2nd opposite party.  The EMIs were regularly and automatically got transferred from her salary account to the loan account and the whole amount was cleared and no amount was due from her side.  That was why there was no demand notice or claim letter from the 2nd opposite party to the 2nd complainant as the principal borrower or against the 1st complainant as the guarantor, till now, even after expiry of five year.  If at all there was any alleged outstanding towards interest, that too had been entirely paid or transferred from Government side to the said loan account under waiver of loan scheme.  As per the complainant’ records, the transfer of funds was reflected in the account statement and NIL balance was shown in the account. In this scenario, blocking and holding of money lying into his credit without assigning any valid reason was illegal besides deficiency in rendering service to the customers who are senior citizens. Therefore, it was clear that there was no outstanding towards the said loan account.  Now all of a sudden after five years blocking and holding up from the 1st complainant’s account was a clear case of violation particularly without any prior notice.  The 2nd opposite party had not even given the entire Statement of Account despite a written request been made by the complainants.  The complainant state that they hail from a very decent family and did not intend to commit default, in fact there was no default. If any genuine claim was made from the 2nd opposite party, it would have been settled by the complainants.  There was no intimation from the 2nd opposite party at any point of time and as of now. Complainants were forced to send a notice dated 01.04.2019 through their counsel to the opposite parties calling upon them to immediately allow the 1st complainant to withdraw the said amount.  Although the opposite parties received the said notice on 10.04.2019 there has been no reply nor the 1st complainant was permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from his account. The 1st complainant also issued a cheque No.342981 dated 12.04.2019 for Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of one Mr.S.Somasundaram and complainant had suffered mental agony and loss of reputation as the said cheque was returned unpaid for the reason of fund insufficient and a sum of Rs.590/- was debited from his account towards cheque return charges by the 1st opposite party. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed for the following reliefs as mentioned below;

To transfer the debited amount of Rs.2,00,000/- into the complainant’s account No.20039064993 maintained with the opposite party

 To permit the 1st complainant to withdraw the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for his account;

 To pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service;

 To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

Crux of the defence put forth by the 2nd opposite party:-

The 1st complainant and his daughter J.Annie Priya were availed education loan in the opposite party branch on 09.04.2004 for a sum of Rs.2,32,000/-.  The arrangement letter has been given to the borrowers with respect to re-payment and EMI details etc. The borrowers did not re-pay the loan properly and hence the loan becomes NPA.  All the efforts taken by the bank to recover the loan amount ends in vein. It was further submitted that the borrower paid a meager amount of Rs.1160/- which was not sufficient to meet out the EMI.  Accordingly, borrowers had repaid a total sum of Rs.1,28,600/- in the account until 11.04.2014.  Since the account turned non-performing asset on 11.04.2014, the system had reversed the unrealized interest of Rs.79,882/-.  Since the loan account continued to be NPS, the advance was re-called and written off (amount written off Rs.1,95,254.31/-) on 27.12.2014.  Hence as per RBI asset classification norms it was not normal closure as claim by the complainant. It was submitted that since all facts were duly explained to the complainant, instead of coming forward to repay the loan amount, they filed the present complaint.  Therefore the bank had acted upon the rules and regulations and on the banking guidelines given by RBI.  Hence the bank has not committed any deficiency in service and sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A20. The 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit and submitted documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked on their side. In spite of sufficient opportunities the 1st opposite party did not appear before this Commission and hence he was called absent and set ex-parte on 18.11.2019 for non appearance and for non filing of written version within the mandatory period as per the statute.

Points for consideration:

Whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in withholding the Bank Account No.20039064993 of the 1st complainant for non repayment of Educational Loan availed by the daughter of the complainant and whether the same has been proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1;-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;

Statement of Account for Account No.10146698505 with 2nd opposite was marked as Ex.A1;

Latter issued by the 2nd complainant to the 2nd opposite party dated 19.032019 was marked as Ex.A2;

Receipt for the Proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A3;

 Letter issued by the 2nd complainant to 2nd opposite party dated 26.03.2019 was marked as Ex.A4;

Statement of Account for Account No.10146624779 with the 2nd opposite party was marked as Ex.A5;

Receipt for the proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A6;

Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 01.04.2019 was marked as Ex.A7;

Postal acknowledgement for proof of delivery to the 1st opposite party was marked as Ex.A8;

Postal acknowledgment for proof of deliver to the 2nd opposite party was marked as Ex.A9;

Cheque issued by the 1st complainant to one Mr.Somasundaram for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 12.04.2019 was marked as Ex.A10;

Cheque return memo from the 1st opposite party to the 1st complainant dated 15.04.2019 was marked as Ex.A11;

Statement of Account for account No.20039064993 was marked as Ex.A12;

Discharge Summary of the 1st complainant dated 19.02.2019 was marked as Ex.A13;

News-clip – Announcement of the Finance Minister during the interim budget session 1st January 2014 dated 18.02.2014 was marked as Ex.A14;

RBI Notification regarding asset classification dated 12.11.2021 was marked as Ex.A15;

Central Scheme for interest subside Ministry of Human Resources schemes for educational loans was marked as Ex.A16;

 Supreme Court Judgment passed in Mardia Chemicals vs Union in India, Guidelines was marked as Ex.A17;

Judgment in WP No.15272/2009 was marked as Ex.A18;

SARFEASI ACT section 9 Rule was marked as Ex.A19;

RBI Educational Loan scheme was marked as Ex.A20;

On the side of 2nd opposite party the following documents were submitted in proof of their defence;

Educational loan dated 09.08.2004 was marked as Ex.B1;

Irregular Repayment Statement was marked as Ex.B2;

Loan Account Statement dated 11.04.2014 was marked as Ex.B3;

RBI Asset Classification Norms dated 27.12.2014 was marked as Ex.B4

 Point No.1:-

Heard both counsel appearing for the opposite party and the complainant and perused the pleadings and material evidences produced by them. 

The crux of the oral arguments adduced by the complainant is that in 2004 they have availed education loan for a sum of Rs.2,32,000/- which was repaid in entirely vide EMI as fixed by the 2nd opposite party at the rate of Rs.1160/- per month.  The said EMI was regularly deducted from the salary account bearing No.10146624779 and paid to the loan account No.10146698505 as per standard order.  While things so, the 1st complainant having account No.20039064993 with the 1st opposite party had borrowed and deposited a sum of Rs.5,20,330/- for his heart valve replacement surgery. On 20.03.2019 when the complainant tried to withdraw the same he was permitted to draw only Rs.4,15,000/- and was not permitted to withdraw Rs.2,00,000/- and the 1st opposite party informed that as per the oral instructions of the 2nd opposite party an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was blocked and withheld by them.  Thereafter the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and showed the Account Statement of the term loan account No.10146698505.  Further sufficient fund was also available throughout the year in the salary account, however no EMI was deducted.  Ex.B4 submitted by the opposite party itself shows a sum of Rs.1,95,254.31/- credited on 27.12.2014 to the term loan account as such loan was closed with an endorsement CR LOAN ACC WRITS OF and the closing balance was 0 and from the same statement it may be seen a sum of Rs.1160/- being collected every month to the loan account from the salary account which was stopped on 27.12.2014.  Thus it was contended that the allegation of irregular payment was false.  Thus submitting that withholding of Rs.2,00,000/- by the 1st opposite party toward the educational loan was clear deficiency in service and the complainant sought for the complaint to be allowed.

On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the Bank/2nd opposite party submitted that the educational loan availed by the daughter of the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,32,000/- was not completely repaid as every month a meager amount of Rs.1160/- which was not sufficient to meet out the entire loan was paid. Thus they have repaid only a total sum of Rs.1,28,600/-and thereafter their account turned to NPA and hence as per the RBI Asset Classification norms it is not a normal closure as claimed by the complainants. Thus the counsel for the opposite parties sought for the complaint to be dismissed with cost.

On appreciation of the entire pleadings and evidence we are of the view that the complaint has to be allowed for the following reasons;

Notices/informations was not served to the complainants with proper intimation before withholding the account for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- belonging to the 1st complainant;

No proper demand notice was issued upon the complainants instructing them to pay the balance amount in the educational loan;

 No proof was submitted to show that the 2nd opposite party had given instruction to the 1st opposite party to withhold the account belonging to the 1st complainant when it is specifically contended by the complainants that on oral instruction was given to withhold. The opposite parties ought to have submitted the written instruction issued by the 2nd opposite party to the 1st opposite party to disprove the said allegation;

Even as per Ex.B4 the Statement submitted by the 2nd opposite party it is seen that on 27.12.2014 towards loan account, a sum of Rs.1,95,254.31/- was credited towards loan and that the closing balance was 0.  Thus it is amply clear that there is no due towards the educational loan availed by the daughter of the complainant;

 For the above reasons this commission comes to a conclusion that in the absence of proof to show that any amount pending towards educational loan and that the educational loan was termed as NPA and that the Account of the complainant was withhold as per instructions for repayment of educational loan, the act of the opposite parties clearly amounted to deficiency in service.  Thus we answer the point in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite parties.

Point No.2:-

As we have held above that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in with holding the 1st complainant’s account for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and transferring a sum of Rs.1,95,254/- to the 2nd opposite party towards the repayment of the educational loan, we direct the 2nd opposite party to re-credit the said amount to the account of the 1st complainant and we direct the 1st opposite party to permit the complainant to withdraw the said amount. We award a  compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- which we thought would be appropriate for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant at the old age due to act of opposite parties.  We also award a cost of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainants.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties 1 & 2 directing them

a) Directing the 2nd opposite party to re-credit the debited amount of Rs.1,95,254/- (Rupees one lakh ninety five thousand two hundred fifty four only) to the 1st complainant’s account No.20039064993 maintained with the 1st opposite party within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; 

b)  Direct the 1st opposite party to permit the 1st complainant to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) from his account No.20039064993;

c) To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) by both opposite parties 1 & 2 towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant; 

d)  To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) ) by both opposite parties 1 & 2  towards litigation expenses to the complainant; 

e) Amount in clause (a) if not re-credited within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate of 6% will be levied on the said amount from the date of complaint till realization. 

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 28th day of March 2023.

 

      -Sd-                                                      -Sd-                                                          -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                         MEMBER-I                                          PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 ............... Statement of Account for Account No.10146698505 with 2nd opposite Party. Xerox

Ex.A2 19.03.2019 Letter issued by the 2nd complainant to the 2nd opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A3 ............. Receipt for the Proof of delivery Xerox

Ex.A4 26.03.2019 Letter issued by the 2nd complainant to 2nd opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A5 ............... Statement of Account for Account No.10146624779 with the 2nd opposite party Xerox

Ex.A6 ................. Receipt for the proof of delivery Xerox

Ex.A7 01.04.2019 Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Xerox

Ex.A8 ............... Postal acknowledgement for proof of delivery to the 1st opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A9 ............... Postal acknowledgement for proof of delivery to the 2nd opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A10 12.04.2019 Cheque issued by the 1st complainant to one Mr.Somasundaram for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- Xerox

Ex.A11 15.04.2019 Cheque return memo from the 1st opposite party to the 1st complainant. Xerox

Ex.A12 ............. Statement of Account for account No.20039064993. Xerox

Ex.A13 19.02.2019 Discharge Summary of the 1st complainant. Xerox

Ex.A14 18.02.2014 News-clip – Announcement of the Finance Minister during the interim budget session 1st January 2014. Xerox

Ex.A15 12.11.2021 RBI Notification regarding asset classification. Xerox

Ex.A16 .............. Central Scheme for interest subside Ministry of Human Resources schemes for educational loans. Xerox

Ex.A17 ................. Supreme Court Judgment passed in Mardia Chemicals vs Union in India, Guidelines Xerox

Ex.A18 .............. Judgment in WP No.15272/2009 Xerox

Ex.A19 .............. SARFEASI ACT section 9 Rule Xerox

Ex.A20 ................ RBI Educational Loan scheme Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the 2nd opposite party:-

 

Ex.B1 09.08.2004 Education loan. Xerox

Ex.B2 ................ Irregular Repayment Statement. Xerox

Ex.B3 ............. Loan Agreement Statement. Xerox

Ex.B4 27.12.2014 RBI Asset Classification Norms. Xerox

 

 

 

      -Sd-                                                        -Sd-                                                        -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                            MEMBER-I                                          PRESIDENT