The complainant’s case in hand in brief is that in the year 2004 the complainant with his wife took a home loan of Rs.2,80,000/- being loan account No.11314845986 from opposite party bank.  The repayment of EMI was Rs.2,680/- and the tenure of EMI was for 180 months.  The complainant started to pay EMI as per the schedule of the loan agreement though the complainant defaulted in payment of EMI for one or two months earlier but the complainant adjusted the EMI by making payment afterwards. In the year 2012 the opposite party bank suddenly increased the EMI amount from Rs.2,680/- to Rs.2,924/- without intimation to the complainant and from this year the opposite party bank did not supply the statement of accounts.

That on 4.5.2014 the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party bank and in reply, the opposite party bank craves some times for payment of the dues and on 5.5.2014 when the complainant went to bank for discussion the opposite party’s officials asked the complainant to make payment and accordingly on 24.5.2015 the complainant made payment of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- for regularize the loan account.  But after that date the opposite party bank on 30.6.2014 charged Rs.12,000/- as interest in the complainant’s loan account, which is totally arbitrary and unfair trade practice.

On 31.1.2015 the complainant received a notice from the opposite party bank stating that complainant’s HBL loan account has become irregular and they would classify the complainant’s account as NPA.  But on 28.1.2015 the complainant has made payment in his HBL loan account. Thereafter the opposite party bank sent another notice to the complainant on 9.3.2015 stating that complainant’s HBL loan account has become NPA but on that very date i.e. on 9.3.2015 the opposite party bank received payment in complainant’s HBL Loan A/c.   Such illegal and arbitrary act and activities of the opposite party bank the complainant became seriously ill.

The complainant further states that in the year 2010 the complainant obtained another personal loan for his treatment from opposite party bank for an amount of Rs.50,000/-.  The EMI was Rs.1,425/- and the loan account number was 31421641775. Though the complainant was carried on EMI on regular basis but the opposite party bank issued a notice dated 9.3.2015 to the complainant stating that his personal loan account has become NPA.  But prior to that the bank neither intimated the fact to the complainant nor the opposite party bank sent any prior notice of irregularity of account to the complainant, but prior to that notice the opposite party bank received the EMI for his personal loan account.

Inspite of that opposite party bank sent different notices to the complainant demanding different amount for regularizing the loan account.  The complainant always visiting the opposite party’s bank and requested to provide a detailed statement of account of the complainant’s two loan account being No.11314845986 and No.31421641775 respectively from the date of sanction of those loan.  But every occasion his requests are turned down.  Later the opposite party bank sent one legal notice dated 7.5.2016 to the complainant demanding Rs.1,75,968.73/- in his HBL loan account and Rs.10,498/- in his personal loan account.  Finding no other alternative the complainant sent legal notice through his lawyer on 16.5.2016 requesting to provide loan statements in details. But in vain.         

Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case before this Forum with  a prayer to direct the opposite party to declare that the claim of Rs.1,75,968.73/- as on 7.5.2016 against HBL Loan A/c. No.11314845986 and Rs.10,498/- as on 7.5.2016 against personal loan A/c. No.31421641775 is not proper and not binding upon the complainant, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental pain, agony and harassment, to produce the details accounts of the two loan accounts of the complainant and to pay Rs.50,000/- for litigation cost to the complainant.

The opposite party contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against him. This opposite party submits that this opposite party working as Principal Officer of the S.B.I. ADB Pandua and discharge his duty in official capacity according to the norms of the bank.  Being the authoritative head of the bank, he always tries to maintain healthy relations with the customer and the question of severe unfair trade practice coupled with deficiency in service does not arise. Petitioner does not maintain any financial discipline as per terms of the loan agreement.  Accordingly, the allegation for the above subject matter of the case are not related with severe the unfair trade practice coupled with deficiency in service U/s.12 of the C.P. Act.   So, the case is not maintainable against this opposite party bank.

This opposite party bank further stated that the petitioner with his wife jointly have taken a House Building loan of Rs.2,80,000/- by creating mortgage of his property as per terms of the agreement in the year 2004 and the said loan shall be payable within the stipulated period as per schedule of payment of EMI.  But due to nonpayment of installment/EMI as per agreement, the system of bank declare that the account of the petitioner Manash Majumdar as Non Performing Assets (NPA). Accordingly, bank authority charged a little high rate of interest as per guide lines of Reserve Bank of India.

This opposite party bank further stated that neither any cause of action nor any cogent ground arose in the matter of HBL Loan which now became due to nonpayment of EMI or part of outstanding debts. Accordingly the question of mental tension and agony sufferance and harassment of the petitioner by the opposite party arises.

This opposite party bank further stated that in the instant case, the petitioner suppressed the fact and concealment of fact of transactions and such suppression amounts cheating the Bank which is dealing with public money and better service for public welfare.

This opposite party bank further stated that it may kindly be noted that the complainant has approached this Hon’ble Forum with unclean hands and has deliberately concealed material facts, having a definite bearing on the outcome of the present case, hence the complainant is guilty of suppression very and suggestion false and doing so has also made false and hold allegations against the op party S.B.I., ADB Pandua accordingly the petitioner is not liable to get any reliefs or cost or compensation.

Complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition. Opposite Party also filed evidence on affidavit.

Both sides files written notes of argument which are taken into consideration while passing final order.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1). Whether the Complainant Manash Majumdar is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3).Whether the opposite parties carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

(1).Whether the Complainant Manash Majumdar is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The complainant herein is the consumer of the opposite party, as the complainant being the customer of the opposite party bank took loans following the terms and conditions of loan agreement.  So, he is entitled to get service from the opposite party as consumer.

(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

Both the complainant and opposite parties are residents/having office address within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued Rs.2,46,000/- as compensation for mental agony and other expenses ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.

(3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

The complainant in his argument averred that the complainant and his wife took a loan being no.11314845986 from the opposite party bank amounting to Rs.2,80,000/- and mode of repayment has been fixed Rs.2680/- per month for 180 months. But in the year 2012 the opposite party bank enhanced the EMI to Rs.2924/- without intimating the complainant. Inspite of repeated requests the opposite party bank did not provide the statement of accounts. That the complainant paid a sum of Rs.15000/- & Rs.10000/- on 24.5.2015 for regularize the loan account but after that the opposite party bank on 30.6.2014 charged Rs.12,000/-as interest in the complainant loan account which is arbitrary and without any basis. Then the opposite party bank sent a notice dated 31.01.2015 stating that complainant’s HBL loan account has become irregular and they would classify the complainant’s A/C as NPA. But the opposite party sent another notice on 09.03.2015 although on the very date the complainant made payment.

The complainant further states that in the year 2010 the complainant took another personal loan for his treatment from opposite party bank for an amount of Rs.50,000/-.  The EMI was Rs.1,425/- and the loan account number was 31421641775. Though the complainant paying EMI on regular basis but the opposite party bank issued a notice dated 9.3.2015 to the complainant stating that his personal loan account has become NPA.  But prior to that notice the opposite party bank received the EMI for his personal loan account.

The complainant always requested to provide a detailed statement of account of the complainant’s two loan accounts being No.11314845986 and No.31421641775 respectively from the date of sanction of those loans.  Later the opposite party bank sent one legal notice dated 7.5.2016 to the complainant demanding Rs.1,75,968.73/- in his HBL loan account and Rs.10,498/- in his personal loan account.

Complainant in his argument also assailed that a non performing asset (NPA) is a loan or advanced for which the principle or interest payment remained over due for a period of 90 days. In the instant case opposite party bank received payment from the complainant against his HBL Loan on 8.9.2015, 29.10.2015, 4.1.2016 and 5.2.2016 then how the complainant’s HBL Loan became NPA on 31.12.2015. It appears from the notice of opposite party bank dt. 9.3.2015 that the outstanding of HBL Loan amounts to 1,95,052/-but another notice dt. 31.5.2016 speaks the outstanding dues as Rs. 1,75,969/- and notice dt. 7.5.2016 outstanding dues as 1,75,968.73/-. It symbolize that the bank has no calculation of the dues. More over if one asset is NPA then how it can generate interest. It is a clear instance of deficiency of service of the opposite party. Due to illegal activities of the opposite party bank the complainant suffered immense tension as their property is mortgaged before the bank. According to the complainant the bank practiced unfair trade practice and also deficient in providing service towards its consumer.

The opposite party by filing written version, evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument denied the allegations leveled against them and assailed that due to non-payment of EMI of HBL account became NPA. In spite of repeated reminders and personal visits of the official of the bank authority the petitioners failed and neglected to liquidate the outstanding debts of the bank inspite of their co lateral security lying with the bank as EMTD. According to the opposite party the complainant is habitual defaulter of house building loan cannot take shelter before this Forum under the Consumer Protection Act with unclean hands. The opposite party further assailed that all the staffs of the opposite party bank are always maintained healthy relation with its customer. The entire banking operation including loan accounts are now under as per system of core banking, which is beyond the control of the Chief Manager of opposite party bank. It is the usual practice for regularize of EMI and interest rate as RBI guide lines from time to time. Opposite Party also assailed that the opposite party bank in their usual course of business sent demand notices and legal notice by his advocate and notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 but the complainant ignore those notices and suppressed the matter intentionally. It is the usual practice that the operation of each accounts of the petitioner the usual interest imposed in their respective accounts and opposite party bank is not at all responsible for such enhancement of rate of interest as per terms of the loan agreements executed by the borrower at the time of taking loan and the said amount which automatically credited in the account by the system of CBS process of bank.

 After perusing the complaint petition, written version, evidence on affidavit, written notes of argument, documents in the case record and hearing the Ld. Advocates of the complainant petition it appears that the complainant took two loans from the opposite party bank and paying the installments and owing to failure of installments the loans turned to NPA. The opposite part bank served notices u/s 13 of the SARFAESI ACT,2002 for collecting due amount but the complainant failed to comply the directions of the opposite party bank in accordance with the notices. In this arena the complainant filed the instant complaint petition praying directions upon the opposite party as incorporated in the prayer portion.  It appears from the documents that the opposite party sanctioned loan to this complainant as per agreement and tried their best to get the loan refunded but the complainant failed to repay the same in time so the loans became NPA. During the period of NPA the complainant paid money to repay the loans but the opposite failed to supply the account statements as per request of the complainant. For which the complainant getting no alternative filed the instant complainant for getting the account statements and other reliefs. The documents depict that the opposite party served notices by its authorized officers and advocate to this complainant but the complainant failed to comply the same. So the complainant failed to show bonafide in respect of his loan account.  After perusing the documents and case record we find no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank rather the complainant failed to repay the loan as per loan agreement. So the complainant defaulted in respect of his loan. It is the maxim of equity that ‘He who comes into equity must come with clean hands’.

Considering all the facts and circumstances we may hold that the complaint petition has no leg to stand, so the complaint petition is deserved to be rejected.

From the above discussion we can safely conclude that the complainant failed to prove his case by producing sufficient documents.

4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant has failed to prove his case and the opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation & other reliefs as prayed in the complaint petition.

ORDER

Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being No.90 of 2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the opposite Party.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary Post for information & necessary action.