Date of Hearing : 5.8.2015
Date of Judgment : Wednesdy, 12th day of August, 2015
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is at the instance of the complainant to impeach the judgment dated 05-09-2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24-Parganas at Alipore (in short ‘DCDRF’) in consumer complaint case No.108 of 2014 wherein and whereby the consumer complaint u/s 12 of the Act was dismissed on contest without any order as to costs.
Succinctly put, the complainant initiated the complaint alleging that being a retired Central Govt. employee on 5.12.2007 he took a loan of a sum or Rs.41,550/- only from the Allahabad Bank, Garden Reach Road Branch on condition to repay the same by 36 EMI each of Rs.1235/- only which shall be deducted month by month directly from his monthly pension account. The said amunt of loan was recovered upto 1.8.2008 after which the deduction was not done. On 1.12.2012 and 22.11.2012 the opposite party No.2 most arbitrarily and illegally deducted a sum of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.17,000/- respectively totaling a sum of Rs.22,000/- without any rhyme and reason. The complainant vehementally objected to the same but on 8-12-2013 again the OP deducted Rs.5700/- out of total pensioary arrear payment of Rs.7816/. The complainant wrote a letter through his Ld. Advocate but it yielded no result. So the complainant approached the Ld. DCDRF for deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. with the following prayers viz. – (a) for direction upon O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.41,000/- ; (b) to pay damages and compensation of Rs.1,10,001/- ; (c) an order to restrain the O.P. No. 2 from deduction of any sum from the pension account; and (d) litigation cost and incidental costs, etc.
O.P’s by filing a Written Version resisted the allegation stating that the deduction or Rs.5000/- has been lawfully made on the basis of letter dated 22.11.2012 given by the complainant. It has further been submitted that on the desire of the complainant they further deducted Rs.7500/- against the loan and subsequently returned back Rs.2500/- in the pension account on 31.12.2013 on the request of the complainant. The O.P.’s have also submitted that since there was fault on the part of the complainant himself, the complainant deserves dismissal with costs.
On scrutiny of the consumer complaint, written version and the evidence - oral as well as documentary, the Ld. DCDRF by the impugned judgment dismissed the case which prompted the complainant to prefer this appeal.
The point arises for consideration in this appeal whether or not the Ld. DCDRF was justified in passing the order impugned.
The materials on record indicate that the complainant was a retired Central Govt. employee and on 5.12.2007 he took a loan of Rs.41,550/- only from Allahabad Bank, Garden Reach Branch and the O.P.No.2 through RLB A/c. No.15098, SB A/c. No. 5092, granted the loan against the terms and conditions to repay the same by 36 EMI each of Rs.1235/- per month only. Surprisingly enough we find discrepancy in between the letter dated 3.12.2007 issued by the Allahabad Bank , Garden Reach Branch, wherein it reveals that a personal loan of Rs.42,000/- was sanctioned with rate of interest 14.25% per annum which is repayable in 36 equal monthly instalments of Rs.1450/- and the statement of account of the Bank dated 25.4.2014 stands in the name of the complainant which shows that a sum of Rs.41,550/- was sanctioned on 5.12.2007 under RLB – 15098. However, the complainant has repaid Rs.1235/- per month and in the process he has paid 8 (eight) instalments and subsequently the O.P. did not deduct any amount from the pension account of the complainant. Ld. DCDRF has rightly observed – “it is very unusual that realization of EMI was stopped after 8 months and deducted amount was returned. There is no document to support that after deduction was stopped, the complainant prays for deduction of EMI’s from his pension account. Side by side, it is astonishing that both the parties got sigh over the matter for 5 years. Negligence on the part of the Bank and lack of responsibility of the complainant are at surface. Such a phenomena could not normally occur if there was sweet relationship between the Management of O.P. 2 and the complainant if the term ‘connivance’ is not used against ‘sweet relationship’.
The most surprising fact is that on 22.11.2012 the complainant wrote a letter to Sr. Manager, Allahabad Bank, Garden Reach Branch disclosing the fact that in spite of existence of previous loan which has not been repaid, he took another loan on 11.5.2012 amounting to Rs.67,000/- against the pension account. We may have a look to the letter in which loan under personal loan scheme for pensioners was sanctioned. It indicates that a debit authority has been given by the complainant to the Bank officials to deduct Rs.1450/- each month from the savings bank account towards payment of monthly instalments. Like the Ld. DCDRF we are also at a lost to understand under what terms and conditions the Bank officials deducted Rs.1235/- from the loan account. Equally, it is unexpected that suppressing previous loan obtained by him without repayment of the same, he has obtained another loan of Rs.67,000/- from the Bank.
Therefore, facts and circumstances clearly indicate that there was some foul play in between the complainant and the opposite parties and as the sweet relationship ended in a bitter pill, the complainant has come forward to lodge this complaint against the opposite party in order to gain something by unlawful means.
Ld. Advocate for the respondents has drawn our attention to a decision reported in 2013(4) CPR 272 (Dutta Motors Ltd. And another –vs- Hazur Maharaj Baba and another) wherein it has been held “one should come to court with clean hands and withholds vital documents in order to get advantage on other side he would be guilty of playing fraud on court and has no right to approach court”.
In the present case, admittedly, a loan of Rs.42,000/- was sanctioned by the opposite party in favour of the complainant as loan under personal loan scheme for pensioners with a stipulation that it would be repaid by 36 monthly instalments of Rs.1450/- each. However Bank officials have only deducted Rs.1235/- per month which is against the terms and conditions of the loan scheme. The complainant did not inform the Bank on any occasion whatsoever why they have stopped deduction of EMI from the pension account. On the contrary, taking advantage of sweet relationship of him with the opposite parties perhaps, he could obtain another loan of Rs.67,000/- and when such a fact was not disclosed by the complainant in his petition of complaint there cannot be any doubt the complainant did not approach the legal authority with clean hand.
For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. In other words, the order passed by the Ld. DCDRF, is a speaking and reasoned order. The appeal deserves dismissal. However, we do not feel it necessary to impose any order as to cost upon the appellant who is a senior citizen of 73 years.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed on contest. However, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal.
The judgment dated 5.9.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24-Parganas at Alipore in consumer complaint No.128 of 2014 is hereby affirmed.
