Order No. 21 Dt. 17.03.2017
This is an application under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, file by the petitioner praying for compensation of mental agony and harassment of Rs.500000/- because of the fact that the O.P. Bank Authority did not deduct Rs.5100/- p.m. as E.M.I, of loan amount of Rs.500000/- along with interest in 180 E.M.I.
The case of the petitioner in short is that he made an application for repairing of dwelling house on 31.01.2007 to the Bank Authority. The application of the petitioner was allowed by the Bank Authority of Rs.500000/- and the E.M.I was fixed of Rs.5100/- p.m. from his salary. The amount will be repaid by 15 years. The said loan was sanctioned and the loan account number of the petitioner 5004300000034. The said loan amount was duly covered under the insurance coverage in one time premium of Rs.14421/- (covered till 31st May, 2023). In the year 2011 the petitioner was astonished on seeing the relevant paper regarding the bank loan that the Bank Authority deducted Rs.3500/- p.m. as EMI from his salary account. He rushed to the bank authority and orally submitted that why the amount has not been deducted of Rs.5100/- each month from his salary and they deducted only 3500/-. Thereafter he filed application to the bank authority but in vain so he filed this case before this Forum.
The O.Ps 1,2,3 and 4 contested the case by filing a single written version denying the allegations made in the claim petition and submitted that the case is not maintainable and having no cause of action and there was no negligency or deficiency in services on the part of the O.Ps. The petitioner tried to get rid of to pay the interest by hook or by crook and dismissal of the case has been prayed for.
On the above cases of the parties the following issues are framed:
- Is the D.F. Case No. 40/2015 is maintainable in its present form?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on behalf of the O.Ps?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other reliefs is the petitioner entitled?
To prove this case the petitioner filed some documents which are marked Exts. 1,2,3,4,5,6 to 10 as follows:-
Ext.-1 Loan application for composite loan
Ext.-2 Sanction Letter of composite loan to customers
Ext.-3 Group Loan Protector Scheme –Single Premium for Loan taken..(Insurance Letter
Ext.-4, 4(a),4(b), 4(c) Customer Account Ledger Reports
Ext.-5 Letter sent by the petitioner to the Bank Manager dt. 06.05.2011
Ext.-6 Another letter to the Branch Manager dt. 24.03.2015 (3 sheets)
Ext.-7 Postal Receipt
Ext.-8 Another Postal Receipt
Ext.-9 Letter sent Debabrata Mukherjee from Branch Manager
B.G.V.B
Ext.-10 Copy of Loan Statement dt. 15.02.2016
:DECISION WITH REASONS::
Issue Nos. 1,2,3,4 and 5
All the issues are taken up together for the convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration.
In support of his case the petitioner narrated the facts regarding the taking of loan of Rs. 500000/- and the exhibited documents established that the Bank Authority granted loan of Rs. 500000/-.
The Ext.-1 speaks that he was willing to pay Rs.5100/- p.m. in his loan application and i.e. Ext.-1 but in Ext.-2 it is reflected that the petitioner accepted the monthly installment of Rs.3500/- from his salary and the rate of interest was 9% p.a. So it is not accepted that the petitioner was not aware the deduction of loan amount of Rs.3500/- from his salary. It is not true that he was not aware of deduction of loan amount of Rs.5100/- p.m. Every year he got the annual return from the bank regarding the interest and the principal amount.
He sent a letter to the Bank Authority on 06.05.2011 that his principal amount is not reducing instead of depositing of EMI for about four years.
Plaintiff stated in his evidence on dock that he applied for loan to the O.P. Bank of Rs. 500000/- and agreed to pay monthly installment of Rs. 5100/- and thus the loan amount will be repaid by fifteen years and the installment will be 180 i.e. Ext.-1.
From the evidence it also reveals that on same date i.e. on the same date the loan application of the petitioner was sanctioned by the Bank Manager and the said EMI was written of Rs. 3500/- p.m. and the interest was 9% p.a. as per the RBI/ Bank Directive i.e. the change of the rate of interest as per the RBI guideline. It also reveals from the said documents that the installment starts from March, 2007 and will be end on February, 2022.
Therefore, it is within the knowledge of the petitioner that he took loan of Rs. 500000/- and the interest plus principal will be repaid within 15 years by equal installment of Rs.5100/-.
From the evidence we are getting that the petitioner in the month of May 2011 sent a letter to the O.P. Bank stating that Rs.3500/- deducted as EMI from his salary not Rs. 5100/- which he was agreed at the time of applying loan application. He further stated that he has no knowledge but that fact is not true. He knew that the installment was Rs.3500/- and not Rs.5100/-p.m. and this petitioner put his signature on 31.01.2007 on the said Ext.-2. From Ext.-5 (a) it also reveals that on 11.07.2013 he sent another letter to the Bank Manager stating that he already paid 47 equal installments of Rs.3500/- in spite of that the principal loan has not been reducing. Thereafter, he sent advocate’s letter and filed one case before this Forum claiming the deficiency in service in the part of the bank and prayed relief.
From the evidence of the petitioner and O.P.W it is crystal clear that the petitioner admits the taking of loan of Rs.500000/- and willing to pay Rs.5100/- p.m. by 180 monthly installment i.e. 15 years i.e. the total amount Rs. 918000/-. It was within his knowledge. The P.W.-1 petitioner being the Head Teacher of the primary knew from the very beginning that Rs.3500/- has been deducted from his salary because of the fact that he stated in his application in Ext.-1 that his gross salary was Rs. 8108 and the net salary Rs. 7658/-. Therefore, his salary pass book shows to him that his balance will be Rs.2558/- but he already received in his salary pass book a balance much more than thereof and he did not rush to the bank at the first stage for the last four years. The letter sent to the Bank Ext. 5 (2 sheets) and the Ext. -4 series taken by the petitioner from 26.02.2011 to 07.03 2015 i.e. the customer account ledger report regarding bank loan. Prior to that he did not took any account ledger report for the year 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 and that indicates that the petitioner aware the EMI of Rs.3500/- instead of Rs.5100/-. It is true that the number of installments was 180 and it was written both in Ext.-1 and Ext.-2 but we are not convinced by the argument of the Ld.Advocates of the petitioner, when the petitioner aware the principal amount of Rs. 500000/- . It is true that during the pendency the Bank Authority sent a letter to this petitioner on 23.07.2015 to deposit Rs.6350/- from August 2015. This letter is marked Ext.-9.
The petitioner knowing fully well filed this case regarding deficiency on the part of the Bank but we feel that there is no deficiency on the part of the Bank except the number of installment which was written 180 i.e. the loan amount for 15 years. Taking the advantage of the writing in the Ext.-2 the petitioner filed this case in a motivated way. He knew that the installment was reduced from Rs.5100/- to Rs.3500/- and that amount was paid with the consent of the petitioner. So the case fails. The petitioner if desire may pay the due amount to the bank at a time and he may get rid of it.
In view of above all the issues are decided in favour of the O.Ps.
In the result, the case fails.
Court fee, paid on the petition, is correct.
Hence, ordered
that the Consumer Case No. 40/2015 be and the same is hereby dismissed without cost.
Let a copy of the order be given to each of the parties free of cost.
