Date of filing :- 11/11/2011
Date of Order :- 12/01/2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Dispute Case No. 42 of 2011.
Biswambar Mohanty S/o Late Baisnab Chanran Mohanty, aged about 62(sixty two) years, R/o Plot No. 22, Phase-II, Sweety Housing Complex, Ganga Nagar, Bhubaneswar-20 ..... ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
- V e r s u s -
The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant:- Sri R.K. Satpathy, Advocate with others Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri D. Mishra, Advocate with others Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Mrs Anjali Behera ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt. 12/01/2015. -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Smt. A.Behera, Member .
Case of the Complainant is that, while working in the office of Asst. Director of Fisheries, Bargarh, availed a loan of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only Dt.06/05/2006 and as per agreed terms he had to repay the loan @ Rs. 1,800/-(Rupees one thousand eight hundred)only which again will be deducted from the salary of the Complainant. Opposite Party deducted the installments regularly till Dt.05/12/2007 and stopped there after and did not deduct any amount but claimed an outstanding Rs.11,507/-(Rupees eleven thousand five hundred seven)only on Dt.20/10/2011. After inquiry Complainant got to know that, Opposite Party set hold his loan account on Dt.11/06/2009 at Rs.17,944/-(Rupees seventeen thousand nine hundred forty four)only and taken Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only from Saving Bank Account No.11042807810 on Dt.17/08/2010. Again on Dt. 29/09/2011, Opposite Party transferred Rs. 5,900/-(Rupees five thousand nine hundred)only and on Dt.14/10/2011 amount Rs.6,900/-(Rupees six thousand nine hundred)only to the loan account. That Opposite Party has committed gross error in deducting more money from a pension account whereas law is that 1/3rd amount of the pension case only be deducted for EMIs to settle loans. That for the fault of the Opposite Party Complainant is charged with as penal interest of Rs.6,625/-(Rupees six thousand six hundred twenty five)only as per account statement dated 08/10/2011. Opposite Parties also did not provided account statement for the period Dt.06/05/2006 to Dt.27/12/2006. Complainant to settle the issue has to come to Bargarh from Bhubaneswar as he settled there after his superannuation on Dt.30/04/2008.
For all the problems faced Complainant claims compensation and litigation cost to the tune of Rs.35,000/-(Rupees thirty five thousand)only.
Complainant filed the following documents and relies on them to signify his claim against the Opposite Parties.
A/c Statement from Dt.31/01/2007 to 14.10.2011 in loan A/c No. 11042900749.
A/c statement in A/c No. 01190028337.
A/c Statement in A/c No. 110428781-0.
A/c Statement in A/c No. 11042807810.
Notice dated 20.10.2011 to Opposite Parties.
A/c Statement of A/c No. 30902735358.
Complainant being passed tests under Consumer Protection Act-1986 got admitted for adjudication of the issues Opposite Parties duly served notice. Opposite Party appeared and filed their reply/version denying the charges levelled against them on Dt.31/10/2012 Opposite Party filed loan application, Agreement and under taking as documents to substantiate their cause.
Hearing complete on Dt.25/11/2014 and parties submitted elaborately their grievances, causes and prayer to the forum. After hearing from the parties perused the case record for documents and following points come out.
(1) Complainant being an employee under the Asst Director of Fisheries, Bargarh. Applying for a loan to the Opposite Party, Granting of the loan by the Opposite Party. Amount of loan Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only been sanctioned all are admitted facts by both sides.
(2) Complainant alleges that, agreement was to repay the loan with EMI deduction @ Rs. 1,800/-(Rupees one thousand eight hundred)only per month which was denied by the Opposite Party. But documents filed by the Opposite Party it self envisages the contention of the Complainant. The loan application form filed by the Opposite Party shows that the loan will be repayed in 24(twenty four) months and loan agreement filed shows loan will be repayed with 18(eighteeen) equated monthly installments of Rs.1,800/-(Rupees one thousand eight hundred)only each and this proves the contention of the Complainant.
(3) Documents filed by the Opposite Parties also shows agreement of the Complainant to deduct the installments from his salary and pay for the loan EMI. So denial of the Opposite Party in their version and counter affidavit that deduction of EMIs will be from salary not agreed or instrused.
Opposite Party said that, the Complainant did not informed the bank about his retirement or transfer Complainant did not answered this question neither was able to file any documents about informing the Opposite Party about his transfer on retirement but he has left his Saving Bank Account at Bargarh intact loaded with funds so deduction of EMIs should not have been stopped. Reviewed all documents and found that if the loan was to be repayed in 18(eighteen) EMIs of Rs.1,800/-(Rupees one thousand eight hundred)only each starting from June-2006 the last installment should fall in the month of November-2007 and loan account should have been closed by than, but it is seen that there was an installments got deducted in the month of December-2007 by Account Statement filed by the Complainant for loan A/c No. 11042900749. It was also seen that the statement has got data starting Dt.31/01/2007 onwards so whether the loan money was deducted earlier is not answered. But it was found that from the above account installments were been deducted of Rs. 1,800/-(Rupees one thousand eight hundred)only from the month of September- 2007, till December-2007 and them repayment were made Dt.17/08/2010 Rs. 5000/-(Rupees five thousand )only from A/c No. 110426, Dt. 20/09/2011 Rs.5,900/-(Rupees five thousand nine hundred)only from A/c No.30902735356 and Dt.14/10/2011 Rs.6,900/-(Rupees six thousand nine hundred)only from A/c No.309027.
It was found from the account statement filed for savings bank A/c No. 011900283370 in the name for the Complainant Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only has been deposited on Dt.06/05/2006 and EMI deductions were made starting from Dt.05/06/2006 @ Rs. 1,800/-(Rupees one thousand eight hundred)only which continued till Dt.09/11/2006 and it was seen that there were less balance in this account on the specified dates of EMI realization that is 5th of each month and the account was active till Dt.10/03/2007 and another new pass book issued vide No. 11042807810 on Dt.22/03/2007 and the same problem is there that as sufficient balance was not there on the EMI deduction date till Dt.03/09/2007 after which EMIs again have been deducted on the specified dates when sufficient balance was found there and continued till Dt.05/12/2007 and again deduction stopped from Dt.05/01/2008 till Dt.11/06/2009 when an amount of Rs.17,944/-(Rupees seventeen thousand nine hundred forty four)only were set hold. Which were later realized from Account No.30902735358 issued on Dt.24/09/2009 opened at Bhubaneswar and an amount of Rs. 18,000/-(Rupees eighteen thousand)only is againt set hold on Dt.20/09/2011.
(6) No documents is filed by the Complainant about his transfer and retirement non for giving information to the Opposite Party about the transfer on retirement.
(7) Opposite Parties in their version at one point say that without standing instruction they can not deduct any amount ever EMIs from any other account of the loanee but at the same time in their counter affidavit admitted that they nave founded the new account of the Complainant at Bhubaneswar and deducted the balance loan now this time now they did this without any instruction better known to the Opposite Parties. But on the whole collecting outstanding loan amounts from a loanee is not a crime and outstanding loans will certainly carry interest more in percentage as per agreed terms and condition.
(8) Complainant alleges that Opposite Party did not provide account statement for the period Dt.06/05/2006 to Dt.27/12/2006 to him checking records it was found that the loan amount is credited to Account No. 01190028337 on Dt.06/05/2006 and the statement stands for the loan Account No. 11042900749, but at the same time Complainant was not able to prove that he has required for the statement and that is not heard.
(9) On the whole Opposite Parties are careless only on the point of not maintaining communication with the Complainant/loanee for years by not informing him about his loan account nor have noticed at an earlier stage about non payment of loan to alert the loanee but took steps directly to collect the arrear balances which caused all the mis-understanding.
O r d e r
Under the facts and circumstances discussed above the case is devoid of any merits hence stands dismissed.
No costs.
Disposed accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree, (Smt. Anjali Behera )
M e m b e r.
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) ( Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)
M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t.
