BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (DISTRICT COMMISSION), BISHNUPUR, MANIPUR

C. C.  Case No.  2   of  2019

            Ningthoujam Sanajaoba Singh, aged 64 years, S/o. Late Chandrahas Singh,  a resident of Bishnupur Ward No. 9, P.O., P.S. and   District Bishnupur, Manipur.

                                                                                                ..Complainant.

            - VERSUS -

1.         The Chief Manager, UCO Bank, Thangal Bazar, Manipur.

2.         The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Bishnupur, Manipur.

. . . Opposite parties.

                                                PRESENT

1. Shri Y. Lokendro Singh, President

2. Smt. S. Shadhana Devi, Member

3. Shri S. Devananda Singh, Member

For the complainant                   :    Th. Sudhir Meetei, Kiranbala,                                                                     Parameshwri, Advocates

For the opposite parties :    Th. Jugeshwor Singh, L. Arun, Advocates

Date of hearing               : 02-05-2022

Date of order                   : 16-05-2022

Findings and Decision

1.         The complainant applied an educational loan to the OPs Bank for prosecuting Engineering course of her daughter  in Bangalore.  Accordingly the OPs. sanctioned loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- . Thus, the complainant started to recieve a sum of Rs. 1,86,200/- as the first instalment on 14-07-2014. Thereafter, the complainant did not take further loan amount and remained silent.

2.         However, the OPs. deducted a sum of Rs. 3,03,005/- instead of 1,86,200/- from the account of the complainant standing in the OP. No. 2 Bank. Therefore, the complainant files this complaint to refund of excess amount of Rs. 2,71,146/- and compensation for deficiency of service.

3.         The OPs. had filed their written version to the complaint to the effect that the complainant violated the terms of loan and therefore, entire loan amount shall become forwith due and payable to the Bank.

4.         The complainant had produced and examined two witnesses including himself. He also produced two documents viz, (1) loan agreement; (2) loan transaction report.   All the witnesses stated that the complainant obtained first loan instalment of Rs. 1,86,200/- from the Bank. They further stated that the Bank deducted a sum of Rs. 3,03,005/- inspite of obtaining a sum of Rs. 1,86,200/- only.  It could not be sacked in their cross-examination and admitted. The OPs. had also produced and examined two witnesses. They had produced  one document of loan agreement.

5.         The dispute is to be resolved on the basis of their pleadings, documents and evidence brought to our notice. Both the parties have also submitted their written arguments. We heard the Ld counsel for both the parties in length. The Ld Counsel for the complainant argued that the OPs. Bank violated the terms of loan. Therefore, the complainant did not take further loan. It is further argued that the OPs. Bank deliberately deducted a sum of Rs. 1,94,696/- and Rs. 76,450/- on  13-05-2019 from the account standing in the OP. No. 2 Bank. It squarely covers the deficiency of service and claims for refund the excess amount with compensation.

6.         The Ld. Counsel for the Bank OPs. argued  that the complainant is not a consumer as he has not availed or hired the service of the OPs. for consideration. The Ld Counsel for the OPs. stated that the complainant had failed to take remaining loan amount and to submit progress report of the student.  Thus, loan amount become forthwith due and payable by the borrower to the Bank.  Therefore, the OPs. had deducted the said amount of Rs. 3,03,005/- for recovery of said loan. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the Bank is doing public job to take up appropriate steps to realise unpaid loan from the defaulters.  

7.         The Bank and other financial institutions provide services to the consumers within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the complainant is a consumer. The complainant did not inform her intention to stop taking further loan to the Bank. We do not agree with the assertion of the Ld. Counsel for Bank that consequent upon the failure to take further loan amount, it become forthwith due and payable by the borrower to the Bank.  The Bank did not give any chance of being heard of the complainant. Based on the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and this Commission is satisfied to direct the OPs. to refund excess amount with interest as per Bank rules from the date of filing of the complaint to the complainant within 30 days of  this order. The O.P.s. are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-  as  cost of litigation to the Complainant.

            The complaint is allowed to the extent indicated.

            Announced.