BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; DHARWAD.
DATE: 30/08/2016
PRESENT:
1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha : President
2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi : Member
Complaint No.: 98/2016
Complainant: Vijaykumar S/o. Yashwant Koppad,
Age:37 years, Occ: Business,
R/o: Plot No-102, 1st Cross, Siddharoodha swamy
Nagar, Adargunchi Village,
Taluk: Hubballi, Dist: Dharwad.
(Rep.by.Shri.B.S.Hoskeri.Adv)
V/s
Respondent: Union Bank of India,
Lamington Road,
Hubballi-580029,
Rep.by its Branch Manager.
(Rep.by.Shri.H.H.Balanayak.Adv)
O R D E R
By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.
- The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondent to close complainants loan account by receiving the balance due with interest if any by remitting all the other charges, to order for payment of nominal compensation of Rs;30,000/- towards harassment and agony to order for cost of proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant is a commerce graduate with article-ship in charted accountancy course and having computer knowledge. Hence during 2010 he was in search of a suitable job. Mean time he planned to open browsing center with assistance of Asst.Director and CLO of CGTMSE and credit monitory cell. On approach of Asst.Director of CGTMSE recommended respondent for loan to the complainant. After approach of Chief Manager of Respondent bank on verification of the complainant’s eligibility agreed to advance loan of Rs;7,00,000/- while advancing loan the respondent put condition to arrange for fixed Deposit of Rs;5 lacks as collateral security towards the loan. After compliance the respondent sanctioned loan of Rs;7,00,000/- under loan account 331706140011673 . The complainant had also offered 2 FDs of worth Rs;2,50,000/- each towards collateral security. Respondent fixed 60 EMIs of Rs;11,666/-p.m. towards repayment commencing from June 2010. The complainant also started his computer center works at the assistance of Respondents financial assistance under the name and style Mega Browsing Center at Hubballi. Since there was competition in the field of browsing center works the complainant could not run his business to an extent as he thought, and could not able to do repayments as such he decided to close the business and to pay all the bank dues. Accordingly on 21/7/2011 the complainant repaid the liability of Rs;7,90,805/- by adjusting the proceeds of two FDs and additional cash of Rs;42,000/- and closed the loan account on the same day. In spite of closing the loan account to the utter shock of complainant the complainant on 28/4/2015 received a notice from the respondent showing a huge amount of Rs;26,251/- being the interest and balance instalments. Again on 25/6/2015 the complainant received one more notice showing outstanding of Rs;51,903/- as on date. To the date of closure of the loan account on 21/7/2011there was balance of Rs.9,421/- . Hence the complainant personally requested the respondent to wave the same as the complainant has paid huge amount of interest on borrowed amount. Respondent has agreed for the request. Hence the complainant was under impression that the respondent has closed his loan account. But after long gap of 45 months the complainant received notice showing an overdue amount of Rs;25,540/- as on 8/4/2015 and another letter on 28/4/2015 showing due of Rs;26,251/- third letter on 15/7/2015 showing overdue amount of Rs;51,903/-. At the end received legal notice dtd. 15/7/2015 showing balance of Rs;52,040/- . It appears that in course of forty five months the respondents irrationally debited a sum of Rs;41,482/- as bank interest/insurance/CGTMSE fees/CGTMSE service charges etc. etc., on a balance loan amount of Rs;9,421/- which is illegal , unfair and against the contractual terms. In reply letter the complainant clearly made out his willingness to pay the loan amount of Rs;9,421/- and whatever the amount of interest on it. For that the respondent did not responded which amounts to deficiency of 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 respondent appeared and filed detailed written version, taking contention that the very complaint is false, frivolous and concocted and not tenable either on law or on facts, and prays for dismissal of the same. While the answering respondent denied all the complaint averments and also denied and disputes the prayers prayed in the relief column of the complaint. While the respondent admits avail of the loan and repayment schedule and commencement of business by the complainant on the loan amount sanctioned by the respondent. Also admits approach of the respondent subsequently and shown his willingness to close his loan account and repayment of the amount on 21/7/2011. While contended on 21/7/2011 after payment of liabilities the complainant was in due of Rs;9,421/- but he has not clear the same as such loan amount went on increasing by accrual of interest and other charges as per terms and conditions of the respondents bank’s loan norms. In spite of it the complainant knowingly well of all the facts without paying the due amount approach the forum and filed the instant complaint suppressing the real facts on hypothetical ,imaginary and on surmises as well as conjecture basis to escape from his liabilities. The respondent has not committed any deficiency as alleged as such the complainant is not entitle for any relief by the hands of this forum and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:
- Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
- Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit and relied on documents. Heard. Perused the records.
Finding on points is as under.
- In Negative.
- Accordingly
- As per order
R E A S O N S
P O I N T S 1 & 2
5. Ongoing through the pleadings, & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, the complainant had availed loan by hypothecating the machineries and undertaken to do repayment of the borrowed amount in accordance with the terms and conditions of the respondent.
6. Now the question to be determined is, whether respondent had assured to wave balance amount of Rs.9,421/- despite of assurance non waving the due amount and charging the interest and other charges on the due amount in accordance with terms and conditions of the loan amounts to deficiency of service by the respondent, if so for what relief the complainant is entitle .
7. Ongoing through the pleadings and evidence of both the parties only disputed fact is that charging of insurance and CGTMSE service charges and service tax on the due amount of Rs;9,421/- by the respondent.
8. Since the facts have been revealed in detail which requires no repetition.
9. As discussed supra only grievance of the complainant is that on the paltry due amount of Rs;9,421/- the respondent have charged insurance amount and CGTMSE Fees, Service charges and service tax. So respondent has committed deficiency of service. Though the complainant in his pleadings pleaded and contended towards the security of the loan the respondent insist for offer FDRs to a tune of Rs;5,00,000/- against loan of Rs;7,00,000/- the complainant did not produced any documents in support of that contention pro-contra the respondent denied the same and contended they have not insist to offer FDRs towards the collateral security as contended by the complainant. Instead the respondent contend they have sanctioned the loan irrespective of collateral security as there was assurance by CGTMSE for safer proposal. So only they have charged CGTMSE fees and service charges in accordance with loan norms.
10. So also the respondent denied the contention of the complainant that while discharging the liabilities on 21/7/2011 by the complainant the respondent have assured to wave the balance amount of Rs;9,421/- Pro contra to this denial by the respondent and in support of contention of the complainant that the respondent had assured to wave the said amount the complainant did not produce any documents. Hence the contention of the complainant that under the guise of assurance made by the respondent to wave the balance amount complainant was under the impression entire loan amount have been cleared and account has been closed is not acceptable. If the contention of the complainant is true why the complainant did not obtained NOC on that day 21/7/2011 itself? So also it is to be noted here when the loan article/subject matter is hypothecated to the respondent should it not be the duty of the complainant to obtain NOC to discharge the machineries hypothecated to the respondent. Since the respondent bank is a public Sector Nationalized Bank unless there be a provision to wave, the respondent sue moto cannot wave the due amounts at his whims and Fancies of manager of the respondent bank. Further the complainant failed to establish, the respondent has illegally and unwarrantedly levied service and insurance charges and CGTMSE charges. As such the complainant fail to establish his case of deficiency in service by the respondent.
11 However looking into the circumstances the complainant had repaid the borrowed amount in lump sum in a short span of avail of loan and earlier to closure of schedule EMIs. Looking in to this as contended by the complainant when the complainant had discharged his huge liability in a single repayment unless there be a assurance by the respondent to wave a balance amount of Rs;9,421/- the complainant would have not kept in due of such a paltry amount and keep quite . As contended by the complainant he received the demand notice of due amount only after lapse of long gap of 45 months, with huge due amount charging interest, CGTMSE Fee/Service tax/service charge amounting to more than Rs;50,259.90 as per Ex.C-4. But at the time of Argument of the respondent it came out the respondent have not charged illegally as contended by the complainant and they have charged legally in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan. In this juncture the main grievance of the complainant is that till then 8/4/2015 issue of legal notice by the respondent since 21/7/2011 the respondent have not issued any intimation or reminders to the complainant and sue moto after long gap of 45 months they issued legal notice to do repayment showing huge amount of Rs;51,903.90 by levying all other charges on paltry amount.
12. Looking in to the contention of the complainant and approach of the complainant to the Forum indicates the complainant has filed the present complaint in the interest of more than for a relief, to create awareness to the respondent service providers to be diligent in dealing the services to the consumer/ costumers. This is evident by non-production of documents viz., Insurance Policy bond, timely payment of insurance premium receipts etc., By this it could be make out the respondent have committed deficiency to that an extent . But as contended by the complainant the respondents have not totally committed deficiency in service. As to the contention of complainant that for a paltry due amount of Rs.9,421/- the respondent apart from charging interest has also deducted the amount towards insurance premium CGTMSE fees, service charges and service tax and contended those charges have ought not have charged and pray this Forum to issue directions to remit those charges. This prayer of the complainant cannot be accepted and considered and direct to remit the same , because those charges have been paid to the insurance company and CGTMSE so if in the event this Forum by this order issue such direction the respondent cannot enforce the same so such reliefs cannot be granted within the jurisdiction of this Forum .
13. However at its maximum this Forum can impose cost against the respondents for having committed default in noncompliance and issue of intimation of deductions to the complainant. So at the cost of creating awareness and to have future check not to repeat such misconduct by the respondent/service provider, if a cost Rs;5,000/- is imposed against the respondent for awareness it will not amounts to improper as the respondent even after directed to produce documents & even after respondent manager who present in the open court under taken to produce those documents fail to produce those till this day, expect producing guidelines of GTMSE on 27.08.2016 did not produce either insurance policy bond nor premium receipts for having paid premiums on the policies as contended . This exhibits respondent’s carelessness & disrespect to forum & to the respondent institution.
14. Except as observations made supra , since the complainant fails to establish his case of deficiency and unfair trade practice against respondent complainant is not entitle for any reliefs much less for the relief as sought.
In view of the discussion and decisions arrived we inclined to held Issue No.1 in negatively and Issue No.2 accordingly.
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. However as per the observation made respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as damages in the interest of awareness & failed to defend the case of respondent with all necessary supporting documents in defense of their case. Among the damage amount of Rs.5000/-, Rs.3000/- shall be paid to the complainant and Rs.2000/- shall be remitted to the consumer welfare fund maintained in the forum within 30days. Failing to it, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% P.A. thereon.
(Dictated to steno, transcribed by her and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 30th day of August 2016)
(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi) (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)
Member President
Dist.Consumer Forum Dist.Consumer Forum
GDB
