DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __165_ _ OF ___2016
DATE OF FILING :_29.12.2016 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 9.04.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Sudip Kumar Mondal, son of Sri Samar Mondal of Village Radha Gobindapally, P.O & P.S Sonarpur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Kolkata-150.
O.P/O.Ps : The Manager, State Bank of India, Baruipur Branch, Jeliapara Road, Kulpi Road, P.O & P.S Baruipur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Kolkata-144.
_________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
With allegation of deficiency in service , this complaint is lodged by the complainant against the O.P Bank under section 12, C.P Act, 1986.
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
The complainant applied before the O.P Bank for a term loan for purchasing a Bus being no.WB 19F-3438 in the route no. SD-63 i.e Gadakhali to Baruipur. The O.P bank sanctioned the said loan on 6.12.2012 to the extent of Rs.10.34 lac. The complainant agreed to repay the said loan in 84 monthly installments of Rs.18,895/- each with the first installments commencing from February, 2013. He started paying installments from 5.3.2013 @ Rs.18895/- a month. But, all on a sudden to the utter surprise of the complainant, the O.P Bank started deducting Rs.19,922/- from loan account being no.32695909095 ,without giving any information to the complainant. So, the complainant stopped payment of installments since 16.3.2015 ,when the O.P bank failed to give any satisfactory explanation for recovering enhanced EMI from him. In the meantime, the loan account of the complainant is classified as Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 30.9.2015 by the O.P Bank. Notice was issued to the complainant by O.P Bank demanding Rs.9,31,543/- as on 21.7.2016 from the complainant. Now, the complainant prays for cancellation of notice dated 4.6.2016 and 7.9.2016 and also for compensation etc. Hence, this case.
The O.P Bank has been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is contended inter alia that the case is not maintainable in law. The positive case as made out in the written statement is that the loan was sanctioned on the application dated 15.11.2012 of the complainant who signed the agreement and EMI was also fixed in terms of the agreement. The complainant did not pay the installments in terms of the agreement; he became defaulter in payment of EMI and, therefore, the account was declared a Non Performing Asset (NPA) . Various notices have been sent to the complainant and demand of the outstanding amount has been made in accordance with the law. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P Bank and, therefore, the case should be dismissed in limini.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable in law?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P Bank as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Both the have led their evidences on affidavit. Questionnaire and BNAs are filed by both the parties and the same are kept in the record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 :
In the instant case, it is averred by the complainant in the petition of complaint that he took the loan from the O.P Bank for purchasing a Bus. It is also his averment that he purchased the Bus for plying the same in route no.SD-63 i.e Dodkhali to Baruipur vide paragraph 3 of the petition of complaint. So, from the very averment of the complainant, it stands clear that Bus was purchased for commercial purpose. It is nowhere stated in the petition of complaint that the Bus was purchased for earning livelihood by means of self employment. Regards being had to all these, we feel no hesitation to say that the Bus was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose and this being so, the complainant is not a consumer under section 2 (1)(d) , C.P Act, 1986and as such, this complaint is not maintainable in law.
Point no.1 is thus determined against the complainant.
Point no.2 & 3 :
Coming to the merits of the case, it is also found that the complainant himself is the defaulter in payment of installments to the O.P Bank. It is admitted fact that the complainant took the loan from the O.P Bank and also signed an agreement in favour of the O.P Bank. A copy of sanctioned letter has also been placed on record by the complainant. On perusal of the sanctioned letter ,it is found that the Bank has the discretion to vary rate of interest whenever it rises or falls. In the instant case, the main allegation of the complainant is that the O.P Bank enhanced the rate of interest and collected more premiums from him than what was agreed upon. To say specifically, the Bank collected the installments @ Rs.19922/- instead of Rs.18895/- as was agreed between the parties. A statement of account has been placed on record and it reveals that the O.P Bank has collected the installments @ Rs.19,922/- on several occasions and that complainant has also paid those installments at several times. So, taking all these into account, we may say that the enhancement of the amount of installment has been accepted by the complainant and now, the complainant cannot have any demur against the enhanced rate of installments.
That apart, it is found that the complainant has been defaulter in payment of installment to the bank. Installment was paid by the complainant from 5.3.2013 to 5.3.2015 and thereafter he has defaulted in payment of installments ot the bank. Bank has caused no deficiency in service ; it is seen to have acted in terms of the agreement while enhancing the amount of installments. But, the complainant has defaulted in payment of installments. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P Bank. But, as the complainant has defaulted in payment of installments, he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
In the result, the case fails. .
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P but without any cost.
Registrar-In-Charge of this Forum is directed to deliver a copy of the judgment free of cost to the parties concerned.
President
I / We agree
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
