Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/160/2015

T.V.Venkataraman - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Manager, Canara Bank , Habibullah Road Branch - Opp.Party(s)

T.V.Venkatraman

24 Oct 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 29.12.2014

                                                                          Date of Order : 24.10.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.160/2015

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

                                 

T.V. Venkataraman,

S/o. (Late). T. V. Viswanathan,

No.61, U.R. Nagar,

Anna Nagar West,

Chennai – 600 101.                                                     .. Complainant.

 

                                                            ..Versus..

 

The Chief Manager,

Canara Bank – Habibullah Road Branch,

No.150, Habibullah Road,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                 ..  Opposite party.

          

For complainant                   :  Party in person

Counsel for opposite party  :  M/s. R. Umasuthan & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to close the overdraft account as on 29.12.2012 as requested with the security given to the opposite party and return the balance of security of Rs.17,739/- with interest at the rate of 12% to till the date of settlement and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, loss of reputation, mental agony and physical hardship with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he is maintaining an Overdraft Account (No.1283256010529) with the opposite party for the past 20 years against the fixed deposit as security.   The complainant submits that he has given Canara Bank Kamadhenu Fixed Deposits (General) for Rs.54,521/- dated:02.03.2012 as security for the overdraft facility.   The opposite party had sanctioned a limit of Rs.40,000/- renewable on yearly basis.  Suddenly on 01.01.2013, the opposite party issued a letter dated:29.12.2012, it was informed that no transaction can be carried out in the overdraft account and insisted on the complainant to pay the demanded interest.  The dues should have been set off from securities on hand instead of freezing the O.D. Account and demanding payment for regularising the account.   The complainant submits that the timing of the Freezing of the O.D. A/c was crucial.  At the time of the New Year and Pongal this action of the opposite party dealt a severe blow on the complainant.  The complainant further submits that he has been denied an opportunity to present his case.  The complainant further submits that the opposite party has not made out a prima-facie case for freezing the overdraft account and the ATM facility.   The opposite party has erred in holding that the overdraft account, which was well maintained, as Non Performing Asset.  

2.     Further the complainant submits that the opposite party levied compound interest against the RBI guidelines and directions given in circulars 209/2009, 245/2009 and 121/2009.  Further the complainant submits that the security amount available on 28.12.2010 is more than sufficient to cover the liability on the interest dues on the TATA Nano car and the other overdraft amount to the tune of Rs.31,820/-. Further the complainant submits that the opposite party on wrongful declaration of the Overdraft A/C treated the complainant as Non Performing Asset (NPA).   The liability in the Overdraft A/C and interest dues on TATA Nano car  is Rs.51,564/- as per the bank account on 28.12.2010 while the FD amount as on 02.03.2010 is Rs.54,521/- with interest totalling of Rs.57,463/- as on 28.12.2010.  The opposite party can very well set off the amount.  The opposite party wantonly and deliberately without taking steps for set off treated NPA account and suddenly closed the overdraft facility.  Further the complainant states that the opposite party without filing any document or statement of accounts raising false and imaginary contentions against the true facts.   The act of the opposite party caused great mental agony and deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint is filed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite party states that the complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- as overdraft cash credit facility and another sum of Rs.40,000/- as overdraft cash credit facility on account of M/s. Systems and Designs, represented by its Proprietrix Mrs. Narayani, the wife of the complainant and a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as overdraft cash credit facility for the purchase of Nano car.  Further the opposite party state that the complainant has marked lien in respect of Fixed Deposit Receipts aggregating to the value of Rs.1,07,783/- in favour of the opposite party as collateral security.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant failed to pay the service interest of the above said loan and committed default in repayment of both the principal and service interest. Hence, the loan A/C of the complainant has become a Non Performing Asset.   Further the opposite party state that since the complainant’s loan account shows Non Performing Asset status,   the opposite party has frozen the overdraft facility and loan account etc.  Admittedly, the complainant herein has miserably failed and neglected to discharge his liability to the opposite party under the loan accounts referred to in the above complaint.  While so, the opposite party is fully justified in classifying the loan account of the complainant as non-performing asset and in freezing the operations of the complainant in the said loan account.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.   In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and no document filed and marked on the side of the opposite party.

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief of closing the overdraft facility by the opposite party as on 29.12.2012 and returning the balance security amount of Rs.17,739/- as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, loss of reputation, mental agony, physical hardship and cost of Rs.10,000/- as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the complainant’s Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.   The complainant pleaded and contended that he is maintaining an Overdraft A/C with the opposite party for the past 20 years for which, he has given the fixed deposit as security is not denied.  The opposite party had sanctioned a limit of Rs.40,000/- renewable on yearly basis also not denied.  Suddenly on 29.12.2012, the opposite party issued a letter informing the complainant that his Overdraft A/C had become non performing asset as on 21.11.2012.  But no prior intimation of any kind issued by the opposite party. The learned Counsel for the complainant further contended that as per Ex.A1, the complainant booked a TATA NANO car after availing a loan of Rs.1,40,000/-. Since the complainant cancelled the booking the TATA Motors returned the amount to the opposite party on 28.12.2010.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A1, the opposite party stated that

“You have availed a loan of Rs.1,40,000.00 for booking Tata Nano car on 24.04.2009.  On account of cancellation of the booking of the car, your loan account has been credited with Rs.1,40,000/- on 28.12.2010 being the proceeds received from the Company.   Due to non payment of the accrued interest in the account, the account became Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 21.11.2012 which fact was informed to you over phone, immediately.   The present liability in the loan account stands at Rs.31,820.00”.

proves that the loan was sanctioned on 24.04.2009.  But the amount was credited only on 28.12.2010. 

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party levied compound interest against the RBI guidelines and directions given in circulars 209/2009, 245/2009 and 121/2009.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the security amount available on 28.12.2010 is more than sufficient to cover the liability on the interest dues on the TATA Nano car and the other overdraft amount to the tune of Rs.31,820/- as per Ex.A1. Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party on wrongful  declaration  of  the  Overdraft A/C  treated the complainant as Non Performing Asset (NPA) which caused great inconvenience and mental agony without notice.   The liability in the Overdraft A/C and interest dues on TATA Nano car  is Rs.51,564/- as per the bank account on 28.12.2010 while the FD amount as on 02.03.2010 is Rs.54,521/- with interest totalling of Rs.57,463/- as on 28.12.2010.  The opposite party can very well set off the amount.  The opposite party wantonly and deliberately without taking steps for set off treated NPA account and suddenly closed the overdraft facility which amounts to unfair trade practice.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party without filing any document or statement of accounts raising false and imaginary contentions against the true facts. 

8.     The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- as overdraft cash credit facility and another sum of Rs.40,000/- as overdraft cash credit facility on account of M/s. Systems and Designs, represented by its Proprietrix Mrs. Narayani, the wife of the complainant and a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as overdraft cash credit facility for the purchase of Nano car.  But on a careful perusal of the pleadings and Ex.A1, it is very clear that the complainant availed overdraft cash credit facility for Rs.40,000/- only and another sum of Rs.40,000/- was availed by Mrs. Narayani, the wife of the complainant who filed C.C. No.203/2015.  A sum of Rs.1,40,000/- availed at the time of booking the Nano car was sanctioned on 24.04.2009.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has marked lien in respect of Fixed Deposit Receipts aggregating to the value of Rs.1,07,783/- in favour of the opposite party as collateral security.  Hence the opposite party can very well set off the amount of interest towards credit from the security deposit.  

9.     Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant failed to pay the service interest of the above said loan and committed default in repayment of both the principal and service interest. Hence, the loan A/C of the complainant has become a Non Performing Asset.  But the opposite party has not given any notice to treat the complainant’s loan as Non Performing Asset status.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that since the complainant’s loan account shows Non Performing Asset status the opposite party has frozen the overdraft facility and loan account etc.   The opposite party is bound to comply with statutory directives of the Reserve Bank of India while administering the loan account of the borrower.  As per the agreement, the opposite party have every right to set off the interest amount from the security deposit.  But the opposite party failed to do so proves unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall close the Overdraft Account as on 29.12.2012 after adjusting the dues and refund the balance amount of Rs.17,739/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

  In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite party is directed to close the overdraft account as on 29.12.2012  after adjusting the dues and to refund a sum of Rs.17,739/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand seven hundred and thirty nine only) being the balance of security with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint (i.e.) 29.12.2014 to till the date of this order and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above  amounts shall be payable  within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 24^th day of October 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	29.12.2012	Copy of letter from the opposite party
Ex.A2	27.03.2008	Copy of National Savings Certificate issued by Alwarpet Post Office for Rs.10,000/-
Ex.A3	25.05.2013	Copy of letter requesting the opposite party to close O.D. A/c of the complainant & Speed Post Acknowledgement
Ex.A4	05.04.2014	Copy of e-mail sent to the opposite party for closure of O.D. Account and seeking F.D. particulars of the complainant
Ex.A5	31.12.2012	Copy of O.D. A/c of the complainant
Ex.A6	31.03.2014	Copy of Income Tax Return acknowledgement of the complainant

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT