THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE No. CC- 03  of  2021

 

Smt. Rekha Baishya Sarkar,

W/O- Kamal Sarkar,

vill- Bagmara Colony,

P.O. Amtali, P.S. Amtali,

West Tripura. ….…...................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. The Chief Manager,

SBI RASMECCC,

Mantribari Road,

Agartala, West Tripura,

 

2. The Branch Manager,

SBI Amtali Branch Manager,

P.O. & P.S. Amtali. …..................Opposite Parties.

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Smt. Sujata Deb(Gupta),

  Sri Bikram Paul,

  Learned Advocates.

  

For the O.P. : Sri Prabir Saha,

  Sri Sujit Kr. Banerjee,

  Smt. Sebika Debnath,

  Learned Advocates.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON  : 10.06.2022

J U D G M E N T

The case arises for being the complaint filed by Smt. Rekha Baishya Sarkar to this Commission U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Chief Manager SBI, RASMECCC, Agartala and Branch Manager, SBI, Amtali Branch.

 

2. The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant has taken a PMEGP Loan from SBI, Amtali Branch on 19.03.2019 and the total project cost was Rs.2,73,684/-, which constitutes 35% subsidy amount of Rs.95,789/- and bank loan. It has been alleged by the complainant that the bank has charged interest on loan corresponding for the subsidy amount of Rs.95,789/- kept in TDR. It has been submitted by the complainant that as per PMEGP guidelines, no interest can be charged on loan corresponding for the amount of subsidy. It has also been claimed by the complainant that she has repaid the loan amount of Rs.67,127/- against her borrowal account with the bank. It has also been mentioned by the complainant that she filed a RTI petition seeking certain information which were not supplied to her by the bank. It is further mentioned by the complainant that she did not able to repay certain loan installments during the Covid period and such deferment of loan payment installments has been approved by the RBI, yet the bank has classified her loan as NPA. It is also submitted by her that she requested the financing bank to adjust her subsidy, as granted by the Government of India, fully or partly in her borrowal account. Finally, she has filed a complaint to the Commission to redress her grievances for being charged undue interest in her borrowal account on loan amount corresponding for the amount of subsidy and prayed to pay a compensation of Rs.3 lacs for being suffered mental agony and harassment due to deficiency of service being caused, as explained by her. She also prayed for a litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

 

3. The O.P. No.1 and 2 (here-in-under referred to as ‘O.P. Bank’) have contested the case submitting written statement stating therein that the case at the present stage and form is not maintainable. It is contended that the PMEGP loan became NPA due to irregular re-payment within 5 months and the matter was referred to Lok Adalat. It is stated that installments finalized for repaying the loan is @ Rs.6038/- P/M and the total installments was 60 and the total amount is to be paid back is Rs.3,80,280/-. A total amount financed to the borrower is Rs.2,23,250/- and, out of which, subsidy amount is Rs.95,789/. It is also stated that if the borrower is successful to continue in making payment of EMI for 3 years up to 27.03.2022 then she will be entitled to avail subsidy facilities. It is submitted that the subsidy amount is to be kept in a TDR account for 3 years in the name of the borrower and when the loan will be liquidated fully then only the subsidy will be got adjusted. It is also admitted by the O.P. bank that there had been a mistake in computing interest on subsidy amount by the computer-system in place for the purpose and which is subsequently detected and thus corrected by them. It is stated that an excess amount of Rs.4613.13/- has been charged on the loan corresponding for subsidy amount and against the same an amount of Rs.4,700/- has been credited to the borrower’s account. It is also submitted that during the Lok Adalat settlement proceedings, the complainant has paid Rs.39,000/- to the bank and the total amount of EMI has been paid by the borrower is Rs.53,302/-. Thereafter, the complainant has stopped payment of installments in her borrowal account. The O.P. bank denied and disproved the averments of the complainant, pertaining to affecting of pre-mature adjustment of subsidy in loan A/c, stating a ground that until and unless the 3 years period is completed or the borrower liquidates the whole amount, bank has no power to touch upon the subsidy. It is stated by the O.P. bank that the bank has not caused any loss or deficiency of service towards the complainant and the complainant is not entitled for any compensation from the O.P. banks.

 

4. Now the points to be considered keeping the foregoing paras in view are as follows: -

(i) Whether there is any deficiency of service committed by the O.P. bank towards the complainant in charging interest of loan amount corresponding for the amount of TDR, created for depositing the subsidy amount for 3 years?

(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation as prayed for?

(iii) What would be the extent of entitlement of compensation the complainant is eligible for?

 

5. The complainant has submitted the examination-in-chief on affidavit of 2 witnesses, namely, Smt. Rekha Baishya and Sri Abhijit Baishya. The documents submitted by the complainant are marked as Exhibit- 1 Series.  The O.P. bank has submitted the examination-in-chief on affidavit of the Chief Manager, SBI RAASMAAC, namely, Sri Sukantilal Deb. Documents filed by the O.Ps are marked Exhibit-A Series.

 

6. It has been argued by the complainant that the O.P. bank has charged interest on subsidy amount to create an additional burden to the borrower which is not permissible under the guidelines of PMEGP scheme, circulated by the Government of India. As per the argument it is stated that the relevant provision in the guidelines of the PMEGP, the subsidy amount released by KVIC, Govt. of India is to be kept in a Term Deposit Receipt (TDR) Account in the name of the borrower and no interest will be charged on the borrowal account corresponding for the amount of TDR and, yet the bank has charged interest on loan corresponding for the subsidy amount and; it violates the PMEGP guideline’s provision.

 

7. Conversely, the O.P. bank argued that the complainant has been defaulting in repayment of the loan and as a result bank had classified her loan as NPA. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat for settlement and the complainant has deposited certain amount on the basis of the agreed settlement arrived at in the Lok Adalat. It is also argued that the borrower is entitled to receive the subsidy only on completion of 3 years or full liquidation of the loan.

 

8. We have heard arguments of both sides and perused the documents adduced by both the parties. It is an admitted fact, so revealed from the written statement of the O.P. Bank, that there had been incidents of charging interest on loan corresponding for the subsidy amount erroneously by the bank for an amount of Rs.4,613.13/- and; which subsequently corrected by the O.P. bank and credited an amount Rs.4,700/- to the borrowal account on 11.02.2021, which significantly noted by the Commission as on a date after the date of filing the complaint i.e., 05.01.21. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that interest being charged on subsidy amount is established. The O.P. bank has submitted 2 statements figuring out interest charged on loan by including and non-including the subsidy amount. From these statements, it transpires that the corrections of excess interest charged by the bank have been done for a period from 31.03.2019 to 31.07.2019. It surfaces therefrom that for the following period from 01.8.2019 up to 31.01.2021, undertaking the act of making adjustments/ corrections of excess interest charged remains pending from the side of the O.P. bank. The point that raised by the O.P. bank that the complainant was defaulter and, therefore, no cause of action had been arisen and the case was not maintainable does not hold good. We hold that for being a defaulter of bank loan, a borrower can not be denied to seek and obtain a fair and correct interest computation in her borrowal account in a situation to which the interest calculation procedures have been outlined under PMEGP guidelines perspicuously. The procedures, prescribed under PMEGP guidelines, for charging interest on loan amount corresponding for the subsidy amount do not suggest anything differently for borrowers of irregular categories/defaulting bank loans. It is also noted that the corrections of hyped and erroneous interest charged have been done by O.P. bank after filing of this complaint by the borrower to this Commission.

 

9. Therefore, it is held by us that there has been a deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. bank, committed by charging interest on loan corresponding for the subsidy amount since it is not permissible under the guidelines of PMEGP. It is our considered opinion that, such deficiency of service has created harassment and mental agony upon the complainant and, for which she deserves to get compensation. We, therefore, direct the O.P. bank to pay compensation of Rs.6,000/-for mental harassment and agony being subjected by the complainant and Rs.3,000/- as cost to the complainant within 45 days from the date of the judgment. In case the payment is not made within due time, the amount will carry an interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of judgment till the date of realization of the amount. We also direct the O.P. bank to correct and to do necessary adjustments of all undue and elevated interest posted in loan A/c of the complainant caused due to charging interest on subsidy amount for the period from 31.08.2019 to 31.01.2021 within 45 days from the date of the judgment.

 

10. The complaint, accordingly, is disposed of. Supply copy of this judgment to both the parties free of costs.

 

 

Announced.

 

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.