DATE OF FILING: 13.01.2012.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 17.11.2016.
Dr.N.Tuna Sahu, Member:
The complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in banking service against the Opposite Party (For short, the O.P.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant was selected for P.M.R.Y. loan in the year 2006 and his application was sent to O.P. Bank for sanction and the same was sanctioned by the O.P. Bank for availing the said loan on 26.2.2006 for Rs.87,500/- after depositing the margin money of Rs.4,150/- and on renewal it was extended to Rs.95,000/- against the subsidy amount Rs.7,500/- and due to regular transaction of the complainant, the loan has not reached N.P.A. till the date against the said O.D. It is also stated in the complaint that in the year 2010 in the month of February the O.P. Bank assured the complainant to assign his L.I.C. Bond in his favour for increasing O.D. limit but after assignment of the said Bond the O.P. Bank intentionally failed to fulfill his assurance and made several mischief. On 14.2.2010 when the complainant opened a R.D. for monthly deposit of Rs.2000/- in his name the O.P. Bank had fraudulently taken the signature of the complainant without any knowledge and after expired of one year i.e. on 11.3.2011 the O.P. Bank replied that the said amount of Rs.24,000/- was adjusted as security to O.D. limit of the complainant. Due to the intentional and mischievous act of the O.P. Bank the complainant has sustained heavy financial loss and lost his business and remained in mental agony and willfully the O.P. reduced the O.D. limit without consent of the complainant. For reduce of the O.D. limit of the business of the complainant, the complainant unable to perform his regular business and his unit was paralyzed for the mala fide and intentional act of the O.P. and the O.P. is only responsible for the loss of the complainant’s business. The O.P. intentionally not supporting the complainant with mala fide manner and also not disclosed the liability amount even if the complainant approached the bank then and then, so the complainant is forced to ventilate his grievance to the higher authority and after knowing the same fact the O.P. became vindictive and not supported the complainant in any manner as a result the complainant remains most of his time in disgusted manner and lost his business. The O.P. on his letter dated 11.3.2011 asked the complainant to renew his proposal for suppressing his fault which has done intentionally to induce the complainant without his actual knowledge. The complainant send a registered legal notice to the O.P. on 3.6.2011 and on receipt the O.P. have not made any reply, so on 3.6.2011 again sent a reminder notice to the O.P. showings his clear motive and intentional acts of the O.P. and narrating the suffering problem of the complainant. In spite of sending of the repeated legal notice to the O.P. by the complainant, the O.P. remained silent and it clearly shows that the mala fide, intentional and arbitrariness of the O.P. as a result the complainant sustained heavy financial loss and mental agony and by the act of the O.P. the complainant have to force run here and there by losing lakh of rupees in his regular business transaction. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to refund R.D. amount Rs.24,000/- which was adjusted by the O.P. in fraudulent manner which is in the name of the complainant, to extend the O.D. limit of the complainant as per the previous sanction amount, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for malafide and intentional act of the O.P. which the complainant suffered in the best interest of justice.
3. On service of notice, the O.P. Bank appeared through his learned counsel Mr. K.K. Behera and Associates but did not prefer to file his version or argument of the case as a result the O.P. Bank declared ex-parte on 10.6.2013.
4. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint neither the complainant nor his Advocate was present on repeated calls. In fact the complainant is absent from 20.2.2013 till 20.9.2016 and not filed any steps. On verification of order sheet of the case record, it is also found that this is a year old case belongs to 2012 without prosecution by parties. Since the complainant is not interested to proceed with the case and the O.P. has also been declared ex-parte in this dispute, the Forum decided to dispose of the case on merits as per Section 13 (2) (c ) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
On perusal of case record, it is found that despite several opportunities given to the complainant, he did not prefer to file written argument of the case for hearing of the dispute. As per the complaint of the complainant, he was selected for P.M.R.Y. loan in the year 2006 and accordingly he availed a loan on 26.2.2006 for Rs.87,500/- on depositing of margin money of Rs.4,150/-. It is also mentioned in the complaint that it was extended up to Rs.95,000/- along with subsidy amount of Rs.7500/- and due to regular repayment of the said loan it was not made N.P.A. However, on 14.2.2010 the complainant opened a R.D account for monthly deposit of Rs.2,000/- in his name with the O.P Bank. As contended by the complainant, the O.P. after completion of one year adjusted the maturity amount of the R.D. account of the complainant on 11.3.2011 as security to O.D. limit. The complainant has also alleged that he has assigned his LIC bond before the O.P. Bank to enhance the O.D. limit in the year 2010 but the O.P. Bank did not enhance the O.D. limit as a result the complainant sustained financial loss and mental agony due to willful act of the O.P Bank. It is also stated that he has not received the subsidy money from the O.P. Bank. He further contended through his complaint that the O.P. Bank in his letter dated 11.3.2011 asked the complainant to make renewal of his proposal but did not do so. The complainant sent registered legal notice to O.P. Bank on 3.6.2011 but O.P. did not give any reply so on 1.8.2011 the complainant issued a reminder by Registered Post. Despite sending legal notice by the complainant, the O.P. Bank remained silent and not enhanced the O.D. limit as per the assurance. Hence the complainant filed this case for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and to refund Rs.24,000/- towards maturity of R.D. deposit along with cost of the complaint in the interest of justice. He has also cited a decision of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in support of his case reported in 1995 STPL (CL) 271 NC.
5. On perusal of case record, it is found that the complainant filed this case along with an affidavit stating that he had deposited Rs.2,000/- per month with effect from 14.2.2010 and after completion of one year i.e. on 11.3.2011 a sum of Rs.24,000/- out of the maturity amount of the R.D. account of the complainant adjusted as security deposit to O.D. limit of the complainant by the O.P. Bank. The complainant also filed statement of account in support of his case with regard to the repayment of loan. It also reveals that the complainant has reportedly redressed his grievance before the O.P. Bank to settle his dispute but the O.P. Bank did not take any step to redress his even after admission of the complaint before this Forum. The O.P. Bank appeared through his learned counsel but did not prefer to file version or argument to defend his case as a result the O.P. Bank was set ex-parte on 10.6.2013. Since the O.P. Bank not preferred to contest or controvert the complaint of the complainant, we feel that the complaint against the O.P. Bank that even after one year of R.D. deposit the Bank did not give the maturity amount of said deposit to the complainant but adjusted to his loan account is not fair. In absence of any arguments from the side of the O.P. Bank, we are constrained to hold that the O.P. Bank is liable to refund Rs.24,000/- to the complainant as the maturity value of the R.D. deposit. Moreover, as per the contention of the complainant he is also to receive the subsidy amount from the O.P. Bank with regard to his P.M.R.Y. loan. However, the prayer to direct the O.P. Bank to extend the O.D. limit of the complainant as per the previous sanction amount is not considered since the complainant has not filed any promise letter issued by the O.P. Bank to support his claim. So we are unable to direct the O.P. Bank to enhance the O.D. limit as the claim of the complainant has no cogent and corroborated documentary evidence to support his contention. However, as per our considered view, the O.P. Bank is liable to refund the maturity value of the R.D. deposit to the complainant. The decision of the Hon’ble National Commission as cited by the complainant in support of his case is not applicable to this present case since the fact of the said case is different to that of this present dispute, therefore, we are unable to accept the same. In a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, we partially allowed the case of the complainant against the O.P. Bank to refund the maturity of R.D. deposit.
6. In the result, the complaint of the complainant is partially allowed against the O.P. Bank and the O.P. Bank is liable to refund Rs.24,000/- to the complainant. In the facts and circumstances, we do not find any cogent and convincing evidence on record to prove that the complainant has actually sustained huge financial loss due to the negligence of the O.P. Bank. We are, therefore, not inclined to award any compensation in this case to compensate his loss. So the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation by the complainant is not considered hence rejected. The O.P. Bank is directed to refund Rs.24,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand) only to the complainant within two months from receipt of this order failing which the complainant may recover the amount as per the relevant sections of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly. No order as to cost and compensation.
7. The order is pronounced on this day of 17th November 2016 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
