SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, for getting an order directing opposite party to refund Rs.29,000/- to the SB account of the complainant, Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service, unfair trade practice together with cost of the proceedings of this case.
Brief facts of the case of complainant are that complainant is a saving bank account holder of the OP. The complainant started the above account with the OP in the year 2002 and from there onwards he is operating the account without any break. Since a regular and credential customer of the OP that then and there manager of the bank used to sanction personal loan for a sum of Rs.49,000/- to the complainant with a condition to repay the same in equal installments. The complainant have never defaulted the repayment of installments. So the manager never rejected the application put forth by the complainant for the personal loan. As such in the month of March 2022 there was a remaining balance of Rs.32,000/- in the loan account of the complainant and the period of repayment also remaining. The complainant made regular repayments as decided at the time of sanctioning of the above loan and the period for repayment was still in balance. In the month of January 2022, in order to meet an urgent requirement, the complainant applied for a personal loan of Rs.25,000/-. At the time of said application, as per the norms of the bank they can very well advance an amount Rs.17,000/- to the maximum of Rs.49,000/- to the complainant. Unfortunately the manager of the OP has not responded for the application made by the complainant without stating any reason. In fact the complainant is eligible and competent for getting personal loan from the bank as applied. The complainant submits that on 03/03/2022 the complainant got an SMS message in his mobile phone from the OP bank showing that an amount Rs.1,000/- transferred from his saving bank account to his personal loan account mentioned above keeping a balance of Rs.433/- only. In fact prior to the above transaction there was balance of Rs.30,000/- in the saving bank account of the complainant. The complainant also submitted that without giving any information to the complainant, the OP bank has transferred an amount of Rs.29,000/- from his SB account. The OP has no general lien on the savings bank account of the complainant since the personal loan account is not a Non-Performing Account (NPA) or having any defaulted repayment. The OP is not having any authority to transfer amount form the saving bank account of the complainant to his loan account as the complainant is making regular payment of in the loan account without any failure or default. There is gross negligence and deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the side of the OP in dealing with the transactions of the complainant. Hence this complaint.
After receiving notice, OP entered appearance through counsel and filed version denying the allegations in the complaint. OP admits that the complainant is an account holder of OP bank bearing SB account No.3903020100014413 with the bank. The bank had granted overdraft facility of Rs.49,000/- to the complainant on 04/01/2021 under Union General Credit Card account bearing No. 390304060000061 but there is no condition to repay in equal installments. The complainant had executed promissory note letter of continuity and AD 02A consenting to transfer money from his account to meet his liabilities. The loan is repayable within one year and can be renewed every year. OP contended that complainant is a willful defaulter, he did not pay the loan dues. Further stated that the manager has a right to evaluate the pros and cons of every application and decide before granting every loan and is having discretionary right to sanction or reject loan application. Nobody will give a loan to a willful defaulter. It is true that the complainant applied for a loan of Rs.25,000/- in January 2022 when there was a due of Rs.34,454.92 in the pervious loan granted to him. Since already one account is overdue and notice is issued to him fresh loan cannot be given. No manager can grant fresh loan to a person whose previous loan is already due. The allegation in the complainant that there was balance of Rs.30,000/- in the saving bank account of the complainant and without his consent the bank Rs.29,000/- was transferred to his loan account is false. The transfer is as authorized, valid and binding on the complainant. There is no injustice or violation of Banking Regulations and Rules as alleged. There is no deficiency of service or unlawful trade practice on the part of OP. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
At the evidence stage complainant has filed proof affidavit and document. Examined as Pw1 and marked the documents as Ext.A1 to A3. Pw1 was cross-examined by OP, marked Ext.B1 to B3. On the side of OP, present branch manager of OP bank filed his proof affidavit examined as Dw1, and marked as Ext.B4 and B5. Dw1 also was cross-examined by the complainant. After that the learned counsel of OP filed written argument note.
Complainant’s allegation is that though complainant is eligible and competent for getting personal loan applied for an amount of Rs.25,000/-, the OP bank has not responded for the application made by him. Another allegation is that without giving any information to the complainant, the OP bank has transferred an amount of Rs.29,000/- from his SB account to the loan account. According to complainant, he is making regular payment in the loan account without any default.
On the other hand OP contended that the bank had granted loan facility of Rs.49,000/- to the complainant on 04/01/2021. Being a salaries employee, the bank used to permit overdraft of up to Rs.49,000/-. The loan is repayable within one year and can be renewed every year. OP contended that complainant is a willful defaulter, he did not pay the loan dues. Further stated that the manager has a right to evaluate the pros and cons of every application and decide before granting every loan and is having discretionary right to sanction or reject loan application. Nobody will give a loan to a willful defaulter.
The learned counsel of OP submitted that the bank is having a general lien to adjust the money from one account of the defaulter to the defaulted account. OP has submitted the undertaking executed by complainant to OP dated 04/01/2021 marked as Ext.B3 in which complainant agreed that “in addition to any general lien, OP bank may be entitled at any time and without notice to him combine or consolidate all or any of my accounts with and liabilities to you and set off or transfer any sum or sums standing to the credit of any one or more of such accounts in or towards satisfaction of any of my liabilities to you.”
Pw1 deposed that “നിങ്ങൾ 2022 ൽ പുതിയ ലോണിന് ചോദിക്കുമ്പോൾ അതിെൻറ മുമ്പിലുള്ള ലോണിൽ 32000/- രൂപ തിരിച്ചടക്കാൻ ബാക്കിയുണ്ട്? ശരിയാണ്.
This clause specifically permits bank to transfer money and the action of the bank is perfectly legal.
Hence from considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP bank.
In the result complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts.
A1- Copy of bank statement
A2- Notice send by complainant to regional manager Union bank
A3- Notice send chief manager of OP to complainant.
Pw1- Complainant
B1-Demand promissory note
B2- Promissory note Letter of continuity
B3-Undertaking
B4- Letter issued by OP to complainant
B5- Order of the banking ombudsman
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
