DIST. CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESAL  COMMISSION

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

C.C. No.156/2020

Date of Filing:                       Date of Admission:                 Date of Disposal:

    23.12.2020                                    30.12.2020                              27.04.2023

P R E S E N T                :-     Smt. Sukla Sengupta…………………President

 :-      Smt. Monisha Shaw ……………… Member.

                                        :-     Sri.  Abhijit Basu      …………… ... Member.

          JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER

          The complainant filed this case U/S 35 read with Section 37 and 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and  amended upto date.

          The brief fact of the case is complainant was an employee of a department under government of West Bengal. The Bank i.e. O.P was sanctioned a house building loan of Rs.2,92,385/- to the complainant on 03.03.2004 for 180 EMI (Equated Monthly Instalments) upto 31.03.2019 with floating rate of interest as per agreement. E.M.I was deducted from the salary Account of the complainant being No.31820944377  at S.B.I, Birati Branch. Due to floating rate of interest, repayment of the loan amount cannot be completed within 180 E.M.I (s). Moreover, due to financial crunch the complainant had applied before the opposite party to enhance the tenure of the E.M.I(s) to a further period of 10

Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./

: :  2  : :

C.C. No.156/2020

months, which was granted by the opposite parties and accordingly the period was enhanced for further 10 months with due compliance of the Banking regulation and protocol. It is submitted by the complainant that as the EMI was deducted from his said salary A/c. at said bank therefore there is no question of defaulter or delayed payment of E.M.I. against the house building loan.

          The opposite party No.3 enhanced the tenure of the EMI(s) to further period of 10 months i.e. total 190 months with due compliance of the Banking regulation and protocol (i.e. 03.03.2004 to January 2020) suddenly on 25.07.2019 complainant had received a notice from SBI RACPA, Bidhannagar, Kolkata -700054, North 24 Parganas by this notice the complainant first time came to know that the aforesaid loan account has got NPA and his house will be confiscated and further stated that the complainant has been declared willful defaulter and directed to repay the entire outstanding amount of Rs.30943.16 plus interest / charges till the date of payment and within 7 days from the date of notice. Failing which the mortgaged property will be attached or confiscated. If failed to repay the complainant in that event O.P threatened that O.Ps shall take steps even terrorized via NI Act 1981, Section 25 of payment of settlement Act, Civil Suit, criminal case, willful defaulter, name and photography shall published in leading newspaper, Section 138 of N.I. Act imposed. The complainant compelled to pay the dues immediately in spite of his many difficulties. But after clearing all dues including recovery charges the complainant requested through RTI for the root cause of faulty and wrongfully declared NPA but no positive reply was found. The complainant informed it to all higher authorities for redressal, even the Chairman of SBI. The Chairman of SBI directed to AGM SBI, Customer Care LHO Kolkata that ‘please arrange for resolution’ but in vain. It is also submitted by the complainant that there is contradiction of letter of AGM RACPC, Bidhannagar dated 02.09.2019 and Asst. General Manager dated 07.12.2020 regarding telephone call and notices.

          The complainant submits that as per RBI Rule before declare NPA and before taking action a notice of 60 days is required, which was not served. The complainant submits that vide documents of annexure -2 it would show that loan term is 190 EMI i.e. upto January, 2020, but NPA date is 12.07.2019 and after declared NPA how the opposite party deducted EMI from the salary account of complainant. Even after making the final payment and settlement of loan account. The men and agents of O.P members even after final payment harassed the aged mother of the complainant without any reason. The complainant served legal notice through Advocate which was received by O.P. No.1 to 4 but no reply was made by them. The complainant prayed for banking interest out of amount which the complainant was compelled to pay to the opposite party No.3 for final

Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./

: :  3  : :

C.C. No.156/2020

closure of the loan amount as well as the recovery charge i.e. 30381/- and other reliefs. Written version was filed by the O.Ps and contested this case. It is admitted that the loan amount was deducted from the salary account of the complainant and the rate of interest was floating rate, the Banking authority extended instalment from 180 E.M.I to 190 E.M.I.

          It is submitted by the O.P.s that loan account has got NPA. It is admitted by O.Ps that the complainant has to repay entire loan amount as well as recovery charges within 7 days. The O.Ps denies that on 09.08.2020 one muscle man who introduced himself to be Mr. Roy came to the house of the complainant and threatened the 85 years old mother of the complainant for repayment of loan and same thing had also happened o 16.08.2020.

          This case is within the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of this commission. Hence this commission has ample power to try this case.

Issue framed for the purpose of Decision

1. Whether the case is maintainable or not?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs in this case or not?

Reason for judgment

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and character of this case all the points are interlinked with each other and as such all the points are taken together for consideration. We considered all complaint all complaint, written version and other documents filed by the parties.

How NPA would apply when EMI deducted from salary account. The complainant took loan from said bank with a floating rate of interest for 180 EMI but thereafter on the basis of the application of the complainant the Banking authority increased 10 .E.M.I. as such the total E.M.I was settled for 190 months. The E.M.I shall be completed I January, 2020. The E.M.I was deducted from the salary A/c. of the complainant at SBI Birati Branch. But before completing 190 months the banking authority declared NPA which unlawfull, create pressure to the complainant in various styles after repay entire amount is very much unlawful. But after declare NPA the Banking authority deducted E.M.I from his salary account. The E.M.I and NPA shall not run parallaly. The complainant paid all as per their demand. In spite of that the men and agent harassed and his aged mother also. Before completing 190 months EMI how the Banking authority declared NPA. O.Ps could not reply satisfactory why the NPA declared before completing 190 months. Before completing the E.M.I period declaration of N.P.A by the Banking authority is illegal and harassing.

Contd. To Page No. 4 . . . ./

: :  4  : :

C.C. No.156/2020

As per RBI rule a notice of 60 days is required before proceeding of NPA upon the complainant. In the instant case O.Ps were not issued such notice. It is settled law that the borrowers would get a reasonable fair deal and opportunity to get the matter adjudicated.

In the instant case before declare NPA. O.Ps did not issue 60 days notice for repayment. Before completing E.M.I period O.Ps declared NPA which is bad in law. For declaring N.P.A before statutory period of E.M.I complainant faced the financial stringency. The O.Ps illegally claimed the N.P.A. charge. 

The complainant relied upon two case laws Jai Kishan Sharma –Vs- Punjab National Bank, Appeal No. 706/2012 and Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C, Punjab, Chandigarh First Appeal No. 767/2016, Jai Kishan Sharma –Vs- Punjab National Bank 2023.

We considered these two cases as relied upon by the complainant. The O.P members cannot declare N.P.A. before completing E.M.I. period as both the parties agreed.   

All the points are considered. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

it is ordered,

that the case being No. 156/2020 be and the same is allowed with contest.

It is directed the O.P members jointly and severally to repay the complainant the excess amount of interest and excess amount for final closer loan amount and N.P.A. recovery charges along with Rs. 20,000/- for harassment and litigation cost and mental agony within 3 months from the date of this judgment.

Failing which the complainant has liberty to file execution case as per law.  

Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.

Dictated & Corrected by me                      

Member

Member                                            Member                              President