BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE: 22^nd December 2015   

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member 

Complaint No.: 257/2015  

Complainant/s:               K. Ramireddy s/o. K. Somireddy,           Aged about 55 years, R/o. Plot No.55 (A), “Sri. Somanjaneya Nilaya”, 11^th Cross, Nirmalanagar, Dharwad 580003.

(In person)

v/s

Respondent/s:    1)          The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Hosayallapur, Banashankari Avenue, Opp-NTTF, Dharwad-1.

                           2)          The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, S.M.E. City Credit Centre, T.S.Complex, Solapur Road, Keshwapur, Hubli 23.

(By Sri.V.A.Byatanal, Adv.)

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to recredit Rs.30,017/- with interest @ 24% P.A., debited to the loan account of the complainant from the date of debit till date of recredit, to award Rs.25,000/- with interest @24% towards the loss of time, traveling expenses and mental agony and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.     The case of the complainant is that, complainant had availed term loan of Rs.13 lakhs for construction of the working women hostel from the respondent 1 branch in the month of April 2009. After advance of the said amount the complainant was repaying monthly installments regularly without any default. In order to know the details of the loan amount the complainant obtained account statement on 10.10.2014. On verification of the said statement complainant came to know that without his knowledge respondent had debited to his loan account a sum of Rs.26,000/- towards the inspection charges even though the respondents have not visited and inspected the building. Hence, the complainant approached the respondents and their higher authorities with a request to refund the said amount debited towards the inspection charges. For that the complainant did not received any satisfactory reply from none of the respondent’s responsible officers. When the complainant approached other nationalized bank officers, they have told there is no such provision to charge inspection charges without obtaining signature from the account holder. On 13.02.2015 the complainant received reply from AGM of respondent.2 bank stating, the inspection charges were debited as per the terms of loan sanction agreement, but he has not made clear with regard to inspection made. No documents were supplied with regard to the inspection made. Many requisitions made to supply inspection report, but not supplied. Hence, respondents cheated the general public at large. Even from the newspaper also the complainant came to know that the respondent bank is cheating the public. Hence, the complainant approached the Ombudsman of the respondent bank. But no satisfactory reply was given, instead Ombudsman directed if any grievance to approach proper authorities. The act of the respondents in debiting the amount and not giving satisfactory reply amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

3.     In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondents appeared. The respondent.2 filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments. While respondent 1 adopts the written version filed by the respondent.2

4.     The respondent.2 in toto denied all the averments made in the complaint except those are specifically admitted. Among such other admissions and denials the answering respondent admits approach of the complainant and availment of the loan and utilization of the amount for construction works and the respondent bank had sanctioned the amount in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. In the said agreement the complainant specifically admits to bear the cost of the loan procurement expenses, inspection charges & other antecedentle charges and accordingly as per the consent given by the complainant the respondent periodically inspected the loan schedule property and accordingly charged inspection charges in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement as such the respondents have not committed any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands, he suppressed the material facts with regard to his profession, intentionally to avoid the circumstances and made false allegations against the respondents and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same. While the respondent admits approach of the complainant to banking Ombudsman and accordingly banking Ombudsman rejected the claim of the complainant as per Clause 13 (A) of banking Ombudsman rule. Further the respondent taken contention that the complaint is hopelessly time barred as the complainant has availed loan in the year 2009 & accordingly inspection charges were debited periodically commencing from the date of availment of loan. Hence, present complaint is barred by time limitation & this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the same and prays for dismissal of the complaint on those grounds and also on the ground the complainant in his pleadings made allegation with regard to cheating and fraud. Under those circumstances the Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint and prays for dismissal of the complaint. Further the respondents taken contention that as the respondent has charged the inspection charges as per the guidelines and terms and conditions of the loan agreement and after inspection there does not arise question of recreditng the said amount instead prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.

5.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit, relied on documents.  Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1.   Negatively
2.   Accordingly  
3.  As per order

Reasons

Points 1 and 2

6.     On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact,  that the complainant had availed term loan for construction of working women hostel from the respondent. Further there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant is making repayments as undertaken under loan agreement.

7.     Now the question to be determined is, whether the inspection charges charged and debited to the loan account by the respondent amounts to a deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.

8.     Since the facts have been revealed in detail which requires no repetition.

9.     By the pleadings and evidence and documents it is evident that the complainant is making repayments regularly without any default. As observation made only dispute is with regard to the fact charging of the inspection charges.

10.   It is the definite case of the respondent that the complainant availed loan in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement Ex.R9. Whereas in the column 9 of the letter of arrangement Ex.R9 it is specifically mentioned the cost of the inspection shall be borne by the borrower. Even in the Ex.C13 annexure-A condition 11 (e) it is very specifically mentioned the unit will be inspected at half yearly intervals. Field officer will inspect the immovable property once in a year, the cost of the inspection shall be borne by the unit. But it is the contention of the complainant that the respondents without visiting the spot debited the amount to the loan account on 6 occasion towards inspection charges without inspecting the spot. Hence, he is entitled for refund of the same & such debitence towards inspection charges without visiting the unit amounts to a deficiency in service.

11.   But the respondent in reply to it and rebuttal to the contention of the complainant and in corroboration to the contention of the respondent that they have charged after inspection only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the respondent produced and relied inspection report Ex.R2 to R7, R10 & contended they are justified in charging the inspection charges & have not committed any deficiency in service as alleged.

12.   On keen reading of proviso 9 of letter of arrangement/ loan agreement Ex.R9 it reads “the bank officials/inspectors are to be permitted in the factory/business premises as and when require to inspect the stocks/ books/ equipment. Where the premises are leased/hired, necessary approvals to the effect from the lessor, if any required, are to be obtained. All assistance to be extended to the Bank’s officials in conducting and completing such inspections smoothly. Necessary remedial steps are also to be taken to rectify any shortcomings, if any, pointed out by the bank’s officials. The cost of such inspection shall be borne by you”. To both documents Ex.R9 & C13 the complainant had duly signed & agreed. Under those circumstances complainant shall not raise any objections when the amount is debited towards inspection charges. So also while debiting the inspection charges no prior permission will be required for the bank/ respondents.

13.   Another objections raised by the respondent is that the loan is sanctioned in the year 2009 thereafter the respondent bank as per the terms and conditions of the agreement annually charging the inspection charges. After lapse of several years the complainant approached this Forum and filed complaint on 22.08.2015 as such there is no cause of action for the present complaint and complaint is barred by the limitation. In support of this contention the respondent also argued and also taken contention that the complainant being a borrower and also an income tax assessee and being diligent person of legal profession (Advocate) must act diligently inspite of this without cause of action the complainant approached this Forum and filed the instant complaint in order to harass the respondent. Perusal of Ex.C14, 15, 16, 17, 18 the tax returns reveals the complainant is an assesse and he must well aware of the fact and should have approached this Forum well in time, but not approached within stipulated 2 years period from the date of cause of action. Hence, contention of complainant both on the point of limitation as well as on the point of non adduce of the evidence to establish his contention that the respondent bank have not visited the spot and have charged against to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement is not acceptable and the complainant failed to establish his contention of deficiency in service against the respondent.

14.   By recitals of the Clause 9 of Ex.R9 of loan arrangement schedule, the respondent bank being a public sector & nationalized financial institution should have obtain signatures  on spot inspection reports Ex.R2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and R10 but have not obtained. To this an extent there is deviation in procedural aspect amounting to deficiency in service on the part of respondent. Under those circumstances in order to check such deficiency in service in future this Forum determines and held it is a part of deficiency in service and to put check on such carelessness attitude of the public sector banking institutions by imposing some fine by way of punitive damages.

15.   However as per the above discussions and observations we hold the complainant has failed to establish his case of deficiency in service and hence the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs as prayed except for the part in the punitive damages.

16.  In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 negatively & accordingly.

17.   Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

O R D E R

        Complaint is dismissed. The respondents.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards punitive damages as per the observation made. Among the punitive damages Rs.2,500/- shall be remitted to Consumer Welfare Fund maintained in the Consumer Forum, while the balance Rs.2,500/- shall be remitted to the loan account of the complainant maintained in the respondent bank within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing to comply the same, the said amount shall carry interest @9% P.A. from thereon till realization.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 22^nd day of December 2015)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                                      (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                                           President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                    Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR