Karnataka

Kolar

CC/65/2014

Sri.V.Manjunatha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Canara Bank, - Opp.Party(s)

Ramakrishna.C

16 Jan 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing: 30/12/2014

Date of Order: 16/01/2017

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 16^th DAY OF JANUARY 2017

PRESENT

SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB…..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB           ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 65 OF 2014

Sri. V.Manjunatha,

S/o. late Veerabadrachari,

Aged About 42 Years,

R/at: Kyalanur Village,

Vemgal Hobli, Kolar Taluk.

 

(Rep. by Sri. C.Ramakrishna & Ashwath, Advocate)             ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

The Manager,

Canara Bank,

Kyalanur Branch,

Vemgal Hobli,

Kolar Taluk.

(Rep. by Sri. R.A. Mohan, Advocate)                            …. Opposite Party.

-: ORDER:-

 

BY SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has preferred this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking directions against the OP-Bank to transfer the subsidy amount of Rs.1,23,000/- along with interest from the date of debiting the same to the loan account of the complainant at the rate of 2% per month till payment with costs of the proceedings.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, complainant had availed loan from the OP-Bank for development of brick factory which was run by him under the name and style of ‘M/s. KVM Bricks Industries” at Kyalanur.  Later due to water and labour problems complainant stopped brick factory and as a result he had not paid the loan amount in time to the OP-Bank.  After one or two years the Central Government announced OTS scheme to help the loanees, at that time, complainant paid entire loan amount of Rs.8,00,000/- under OTS scheme and OP-Bank issued clearance certificate to the complainant.  After lapse of two months, from the date of issuance of clearance certificate, complainant opted for subsidy amount before Department of Industries and Commerce.    And the said Department sanctioned subsidy amount of Rs.1,23,000/- i.e., 50% of the loan amount out of Rs.2,46,000/- in favour of the complainant  on 22.03.2008.  On 22.03.2013 complainant opted for transfer of the said subsidy amount to his S.B account with the OP-Bank. 

 

(b)    Further submission of the complainant is that, in spite of payment of entire loan amount from the complainant and in spite of issuance of clearance certificate towards the said loan from the OP-Bank, the OP-Bank without the knowledge of the complainant has debited the subsidy amount of Rs.1,23,000/- to the loan account of the complainant.  Thereafter in spite of several approaches and requests made by the complainant with the OP-Bank the OP-Bank has not cared to settle the claim nor debited the same to his S.B. account.  Hence on 10.09.2014 complainant issued legal notice to the OP-Bank calling upon to transfer the said subsidy amount of Rs.1,23,000/- along with interest at the rate of 2% per month from the date of debiting the said amount to the loan account of the complainant, but all went in vain.  Hence this complaint. 

 

(c)    Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted List of documents as mentioned below:-

(i) Copy of the Legal notice, dated: 10.09.2014

(ii) Original postal receipt, dated: 10.09.2014

(iii) Copy of Acknowledgement, dated: 11.09.2014

(iv) Application given by the complainant to OP-Bank seeking transfer of subsidy amount, dated: 02.03.2013.

(v) Sanction order letter dated: 15.03.2008

 

03.   In response to the notice issued by this Forum, counsel for OP-Bank appeared and filed its version resisting the claim of the complainant in toto:-

 

(a)    The complainant has borrowed a “Term Loan” for Brick Factory of Rs.8,00,000/- and the same was sanctioned to him as per the terms and conditions of the Bank norms.  And then the loanee became irregular.  The complainant has failed to maintain his account regularly and as such, he was a defaulter.  Thereafter complainant approached the OP-Bank stating that, he will settle the loan under OTS scheme.  After considering the same his loan account was settled for Rs.8,00,000/- under O.T.S., but OP-Bank has sacrificed more than Rs.4,00,000/- under the said scheme.  The complainant is supposed to pay more than Rs.12,00,000/- with interest, but OP-Bank has received Rs.1,23,000/- directly from D.I.C., and the same has been adjusted to the sacrificed amount as per the sanctioned conditions and as such, there is no question of refund of any subsidy amount to the complainant.  So contending, OP-Bank has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

 

04.   The learned counsel for the complainant has filed complainant’s affidavit evidence by way examination-in-chief on 08.10.2015 and Sri. R.M. Shankarappa, The Manager of the OP-Bank has filed his affidavit evidence on 19.02.2016.

 

05.   The learned counsel appearing for both sides have submitted their respective written arguments. 

 

06.   On 05.12.2016 counsel for OP-Bank has submitted a Memo with following citation:-

(i) Hon’ble Supreme Court yearly Digest 1996 at Page No.94.

 

07.   Heard oral arguments as advanced by both the learned counsels.

 

08.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

(A) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Bank?

(B) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint?

(C) What order?

 

09.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points are:-

POINT (A) & (B):- In the Affirmative

POINT (C):-  As per the final order

for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT (A) & (B):-

10.   On perusing the pleadings along with documents and affidavit evidence submitted by both the parties, it is an admitted fact that, the complainant has borrowed a “Term Loan” for his Brick Factory of Rs.8,00,000/- from the OP-Bank.  The complainant has become irregular in making payment of EMIs towards loan account.  Further it is an admitted fact that, complainant approached the OP-Bank stating that, he will settle the entire loan under OTS scheme.  After considering the same OP-Bank agreed for one time settlement and complainant made payment of the same under O.T.S.  And in this regard the OP-Bank has also issued clearance certificate to the complainant. 

 

11.   Now the main contention of the complainant is that, after receipt of the clearance certificate from the OP-Bank towards the loan account, he opted for subsidy before the Department of Industries and Commerce and the said department has sanctioned subsidy amount of Rs.1,23,000/-in favour of the complainant, but OP-Bank without knowledge of this complainant has debited the said subsidy amount of Rs.1,23,000/- to his loan account.  And in spite of several requests made by the complainant and also demand notice sent to the OP-Bank, the OP-Bank has failed to transfer the said subsidy amount of Rs.1,23,000/- to his S.B. Account. 

 

12.   The OP-Bank in its version as well as in the affidavit has submitted that, the amount which is received directly from the Department of Industries and Commerce has been adjusted to the sacrificed loan account.  Admittedly the loan amount was paid by the complainant through one time settlement scheme.  Thereafter the OP – Bank had issued a clearance certificate.  Both the OP and the complainant had mutually agreed and settled the due amount under one time settlement scheme.  And the complainant had paid full amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to the OP-Bank towards entire out-standing loan dues.  Knowing fully well the OP-Bank had done unfair trade practice by adjusting the complainant’s subsidy amount to his subsequent loan account that to without giving any intimation prior to the complainant.  Here the complainant had paid the entire loan outstanding amount towards loan account through one time settlement scheme and the said loan account was also closed earlier to the sanctioning of the said subsidy amount.  And in this regard the OP-Bank itself had issued clearance certificate to the complainant.  Once the entire loan amount was settled under one time settlement by mutual consideration and NOC was issued to the complainant, now once again question of adjusting the subsidy amount towards sacrifice loan account does not arise.  Further the Department of Industries and Commerce has sanctioned the subsidy amount in favour of the complainant itself and not in favour of the OP-Bank as per the letter dated: 15.03.2008 for Rs.2,46,000/-. Hence the complainant had full rights over the said subsidy amount.  The OP-Bank cannot take the complainant’s amount without taking prior permission from the complainant.  The with-holding of the complainant’s money in the OP-Bank is unsustainable and hence the OP-Bank is directed to release the complainant’s subsidy amount of Rs.1,23,000/- to the complainant’s S.B. Account.  Hence we answered point (A) & (B) in the affirmative.

POINT (C):

13.   We proceed to pass the following:-

 

16.01.2017:-

COMPLAINANT/BY SRI.

OPPOSITE PARTY/BY SRI.

ORDER

01.   The complaint is hereby allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

02.   The OP-Bank is directed to release the subsidy amount of Rs.1,23,000/- to the complainant’s S.B. Account along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e., 30.12.2014 till realization.

03.   The OP-Bank is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation to the complainant towards mental agony.

04.   The OP-Bank is also directed to submit the compliance report to this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

05.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 16^th  DAY OF JANUARY 2017)

 

 

 

MEMBER                              MEMBER                               PRESIDENT