District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly

PETITIONER

VS.

OPPOSITE PARTY

Complaint Case No.CC/131/2021

(Date of Filing:-05.10.2021)

1. Biplob Mondal

Kuntighat, Raghunathpur

Charger Math,

P.O. Nayasarai, P.S. Magra,

District:- Hooghly Pin:- 712513.…….Complainant

1. The Manager, Punjab National Bank,

Kuntighat Branch off-Chandrahatibazar,

P.O. Nayasarai, P.S. Magra,

District:- Hooghly, Pin:-71251…..Opposite Party

Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President

           Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member

Mrs. Babita Choudhury, Member

                              Final Order/Judgment

DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA:- PRESIDING MEMBER

                      Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the service extended by Punjab National Bank (erstwhile United Bank of India prior to merger) Kuntighat Branch, in the matter of closure of a loan account, debiting of money from the Complainant’s savings Bank account, against another loan account which allegedly was not of the Complainant and freezing of the savings Bank account, the instant case has been filed by the complainant, u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

The fact of the case in a nutshell is as follows.

        The complainant, a savings bank account holder of the Kuntighat Branch of the OP Bank had two loan accounts bearing Nos. 0844306821876 and PMRY0844303200034 with the OP bank. The Complainant claims to have repaid both the loans. The OP bank is reported to have issued clearance certificate against the loan account No…..1876 but no clearance certificate was issued in respect of loan account no. PMRY….0034 but in the respective pass book the loan is shown to have been repaid.

However, the Complainant suddenly discovered that the savings Bank account held by him bearing no. 0844010109423 had been inoperative.

Reportedly, the Branch Manager, when approached, stated that the freezing of the bank account was due to some mistake and the same would be made operative.

The Complainant found while searching the respective app of the OP Bank that his savings bank account was showing a negative balance of Rs.6798.40. A further search revealed that an amount of Rs.701.60 was debited from his S/B A/C and there was another loan A/C in his name bearing no.0844306806682.

Surprisingly the Complainant claims that he never availed of any other loan apart from the two loans mentioned earlier in this order.

The Complainant further mentions that his customer ID is U13809703 while the customer ID related to the questionable loan A/C (….6682) is U13846374.

From this, the Complainant draws the inference that the loan was availed of by someone else and the OP bank has made deductions from his S/B A/C against that loan.

The Complainant claims to have made repeated visits to the Bank and the Bank in every occasion assured the Complainant that the irregularity would be regularized shortly.

Having found no solution to the problem the Complainant sent a legal notice to the OP Bank on 19.07.2021.

Here the Complainant claims that the alleged indifference and negligence of the OP Bank hampered his business and caused a loss of Rs.4,00,000/-.

        Considering the above as utter deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice on the OP Bank’s part causing financial loss, mental agony, anxiety and harassment , the complainant approaches to this Commission and in para No.17 of his petition prays for imposing direction upon the OP Bank to make refund of the amount which was deducted by the OP bank from his savings Account, to give clearance certificate in respect of the loan account bearing NO. PMRY……..0034, to make the S/B A/C operative and to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for causing day to day suffering of the Complainant.

However, the demands made against sub-para d and g of para-17 of the Complaint petition appears inscrutable.

The complainant in support of the allegations leveled against the opposite party has submitted certain documents viz. copies of 1) postal receipt in respect of the legal notice to the OP Bank, 2) the first page of the S/B A/C pass book, 3) Mini-statements generated from the respective App of the OP bank, 4) Summary of A/Cs as on 14.09.2021 showing negative balance of Rs.6798.40, 5) Loan closure certificate of A/C No…….1876 dtd.19.12.2017 of United Bank of India (i.e. prior to merger with Punjab National bank), 6) First page of the UBI pass book holding customer ID 13809703, 7) first page of UBI pass book in respect of loan A/C No. PMRY/34/06, certain manually filled up pages of the said pass book showing ‘A/C closed with due payment on 26.10.09’ against the last entry.

Evidence on affidavit and Brief notes of Argument submitted by the Complainant are almost replica of the Complaint petition. However in the brief notes of argument Complainant claims that the statements made by the Respondent in the written version are false and the account no. mentioned in the written version does not belong to the Complainant. The Complainant further claims that the A/C No…….6682 is a questionable account maintained in Vijaypura Branch and belonged to some other person who was namesake of the Complainant.

In the concluding part of the BNA the Complainant without furnishing the relevant backdrop, abruptly mentions that ‘subsidy A/C never went to minus balance and always adjusted with at the time of loan settlement’. It is further mentioned without offering any explanatory note that ‘the account holder never liable to pay subsidy amount’.

Issues for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
2. Whether this Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition.
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief.

Issue No. 1

In the instant case the OP bank was a service provider.

Hence, in view of the above discussion and on examination of available records it transpires that the complainant is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are concerned.

Issue No. 2

Both the complainant and the opposite party are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly.

The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-

Thus this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.

Issue No. 3 and 4

Materials on records are perused. The issues being mutually inter-related, will be taken together for convenient disposal.

Defence Case

The OP Bank contested the case by filing written version, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument along with the copies of corroborating      documents.

Primarily in the written version The OP bank has denied all the allegations leveled against them.

However, the OP bank has admitted in no uncertain terms that two loans availed by the Complainant i.e. loan account no. 0844306821876 and PMRY08443032000034 were closed.

           But the OP Bank points out that apart from those two loan accounts, there was another PRY (Prime Minister’s Rozgar Yojana for Educated Un-employed youths) loan subsidy account, bearing no.0844306806682         since 21.05.2009 which allegedly was suppressed by the Complainant. The account was reportedly opened as ‘Lapry’ subsidy account with an amount of Rs.7500/- as interest subsidy and the same was credited by the Bank to the loan account No.08443032000034 of the Complainant on 21.05.09.

 By citing this example, the OP Bank tries to establish that the loan account was of the Complainant himself and for certain non-payment of dues the said account was not closed in the system of the Bank and presently the account has been declared NPA (Non-performing Asset).

The OP bank further explains that the said disputed loan A/C …..6682 was previously sanctioned under erstwhile United Bank of India which subsequently was amalgamated with Punjab National Bank with effect from 01.04.2020.

Allegedly, the complainant did not pay the outstanding loan amount of Rs.6798.40 against the said disputed loan A/C and for that reason as per OP PNB CBS (core banking solution) software the particular amount was ‘lien marked’. In this connection it may be mentioned here that ‘Lien’ is marked into one’s account only in the scenarios when the outstanding is not debited. The OP bank clarifies that as the account balance at the material point of time was below Rs.6798.40 the borrower was prevented from withdrawing amount from his savings account. On the strength of the authorization given by the Complainant and execution of various loan documents including the letter of lien at the time of applying for the loan, the OP Bank made the deduction from his S/B A/C No…….9423 as recovery of the loan A/C no…..6682. However it is claimed that there was no freezing of the account. The OP bank claims that there was previous due of the borrower to the erstwhile UBI prior to merger with PNB. The OP bank points out also that it will be evident from the statement of account that the Complainant borrower utilized the interest subsidy amount of the Bank towards liquidation of the loan.

The OP bank clarifies that two customer IDs as questioned by the Complainant i.e. U13809703 and U13846374 had the common voter ID Bearing No. LCX19578278. It is claimed by the OP bank that prior to amalgamation assigning multiple Customer Ids to one single customer was common.

It is also denied by the OP bank that the Complainant visited the Bank several times and received assurances from the concerned authority in the matter of regularization of the issue.

The OP Bank brings to the notice of the Commission that on receipt of the legal notice from the Complainant’s end, a response letter dtd.      22.07.2021 was sent to the Complainant’s last known recorded address for providing documents of proof to the Bank for fact verification but the said letter was returned back to the OP Bank with postal remark “Not found”. Moreover the Complainant neither updated his KYC address nor informed the Bank about his change of address.

The OP bank to substantiate their points has submitted copies of 1) Application form for financial assistance under PMRY for educated unemployed youth and corresponding affidavit, 2) Letter of lien submitted to erstwhile UBI, 3)    UBI’s report on transaction for the period 24.01.09 to 24.12.20 and 21.05.09 to 24.12. 20, 4) Customer A/C ledger report for the period 01.12.20 to 15.11.21 of PNB, 5) Transaction details report dtd.29.10.21 of PNB incorporating statement of transactions for the period 01.01.20 to 29.10.21 7) Un-served response letter dtd. 22.07.21 to the legal notice of the Complainant for ‘urgent submission of documents for verification’ and 8) concerned courier services’ note on the envelope containing the letter.

Decision with reason

Now so far as the points raised by the OP Bank are concerned, the Complainant has failed to furnish any counter argument.

It is apparent from the records that in the application form for financial assistance the Complainant initially declared his address at Village and P.O:- Gopalpur, P.S. Balagarh, But the present address of the Complainant is Kuntighat, Raghunathpur, Charger Math, P.O. Nayasarai, P.S. Magra, District:- Hooghly, Pin:- 712513. Thus it is apparent that the Complainant changed his address but there is no evidence that the Complainant intimated his shifting to the new address to the OP Bank.

Moreover it is nowhere in the Complaint petition clarified that what nature of business he was dealing with, how the business was being hampered and how the loss incurred by him was to the extent of Rs.4,00,000/-

The Commission is not supposed to probe into the intricacies of the granting of loans, accrual of month to month interest, paying off the said loans by the borrower, exhaustive calculation of interest, calculation of defaulting period, repayment of loans, and enjoyment of any Government subsidy by the Complainant borrower. Granting of a loan and realizing of the said loan with interest is the absolute prerogative of the Bank. The Commission is supposed to decide whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the OP Bank’s part while dealing with its customer.

Here, in the instant case the focus lies on the issue whether the third loan account bearing no. …..6682 was in respect of the Complainant. The OP Bank in support of their argument has submitted relevant statement of accounts.

In retaliation to the statement of facts represented by the OP Bank in their evidence on affidavit, the Complainant incorporates just four sentences in his brief notes of argument which are as follows.

1. That account no.  0844306806682 is in the name of Biplob Mondal of Vijaypura Branch who is not my client.
2. Subsidy A/c never went to minus balance and always adjusted with at the time of Loan settlement.
3. That account holder never liable to pay subsidy amount.
4. That the petitioner is not liable to pay anything after loan settlement or fully paid loan amount.

Visibly, these four sentences cannot be a transparent clarification against the allegation leveled by the OP Bank. These explanations are far from being sufficient to establish the Complainant’s standpoint.

Whatever be the status of the third loan A/c, the OP Bank, in response to and with reference to the legal notice sent by the Complainant sent a communication for necessary verification to the Complainant, seeking proof lying with the Complainant in support of his claim. But the said letter got bounced back with the remark ‘Not found’. This is simply because the Complainant did not bring his change of residential address to the knowledge of the OP Bank authority.

It is also apparent that the Complainant neither updated his KYC details nor informed the Bank regarding his change of address.  

All the aforementioned developments indicate that the OP bank made an attempt to resolve the issue by verification of documents. But for the irresponsible act of the Complainant the matter could not be resolved across the table.

In view of the above the Commission is of the opinion that deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the OP Bank’s part cannot be established.    

Hence it is

                                                ORDERED

That the complainant case no.131/2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest. However there is no order as to costs.

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 and necessary action.

The final order will be available in the website www.confonet.nic.in.