IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC 99/2016 .
Date of Filing: 24.06.2016. Date of Final Order: 15.09.2017.
Complainant : Sri Mriganka Sekhar Das, S/O Late Narayan Chandra Das,
26-Sriram Siromoni Road, P.O.&P.S. Berhmpore, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin-742101.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: The Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch at Square Lane,
P.O.&P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742101.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….. President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty ……………………..Member.
Sri Manas Kumar Mukherjee……….……………. Member
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for direction upon the OP to refund the money already deducted from his pension as well as savings account and not to deduct any further amount from Pension A/C for recovery of loan and for compensation of Rs. 5 lakh for harassment and mental pain and agony @ Rs.2.5 lakh each.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that Rs.178100/- was outstanding as on May’15 towards higher education Loan of the son of the complainant for Rs. 5.96 lakhs. Lastly for financial crisis the complaint used to deposit Rs.7,000/- per month to repay the said loan. Suddenly, on 23.05.16 the complainant observed that Rs.3700/- has been deducted from the pension account bearing No. 32747677339 of the complainant and also deducted Rs.6900/- from S.B. Account No. 30963922132 standing in the name of the complainant. Complainant submits that those accounts are neither lien nor charged before the Opposite party. Without taking permission, the OP has no right to deduct the same from the complainant’s aforesaid pension account and separate savings account. On 24.5.16 the complaint wrote to OP seeking explanation for such deduction. Having no result, served Advocate notice on 30.5.16 upon the OP again no result. The complaint is a Senior Citizen and a cardiac patient for last 15 years and faced cerebral stroke. The complainant as guarantor repaid Rs.9.5 lakhs to the OP towards educational loan of his son. Where the OP illegally deducted money from the complainant’s pension account. Due to such whimsical act of the OP Bank, the complainant became seriously ill and fall in bed-ridden condition. Then, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. Hence, the instant complaint case.
The written version filed by the OP-Bank, in brief, is that the complaint took an educational loan from the Opposite party bank for his son, Mahendra Narayan Das in the year 2005. The entire loan amount was disbursed. The complainant and his son became defaulter. The loan became N.P.A which was informed to the petitioner vide letter dt. 25.05.2016 and the complainant was requested to inform the Bank about the details of employment and status of service of his son but the complainant did not make any reply. The complainant also took a loan under Pensioners Scheme and the monthly installment has regularly been deducted from the pension account. The complainant failed to pay the loan amount in respect of the Education Loan. The Banking authority has every right to recover the dues from any other account of the complainant when he petitioner is a defaulter. The petitioner intentionally suppressed the fact of pensioner’s loan which he availed. After the Interim Order was passed, the complainant has become a defaulter against the pension loan. There is no deficiency or negligence of service on the part of the Opposite Party. The complaint is liable to rejected. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been raised for the disposal of the case.
Points for decision.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Whether the complainant has any cause of action to file this complaint?
- Whether the complaint is barred by law of Limitation?
- Whether the complaint is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get.
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 5.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The instant complaint is for direction upon the OP to refund the money already deducted from his pension as well as savings account and for compensation of Rs. 5 lakh for harassment and mental pain and agony @ Rs.2.5 lakh each.
The Complainant’s main case is that the OP Bank has no right to deduct loan from his Pension Account and they have illegally deducted the same and for that prayer is for refund of the said illegally recovered amount and not to deduct any further amount from the Pension A/C for recovery of loan and compensation.
On the other hand the OP Bank has challenged the complainant’s case. The complainant has become defaulter and the impugned Education Loan Account became NPA and also the complaint has not disclosed the whereabouts including the employer’s detail of his son and has also suppressed the pension loan Account and obtained interim order not to deduct any amount from the Pension Account and for that order they could not deduct towards pension loan as a result the complainant has become defaulter for pension loan account. The OP bank has every right to recover the dues from any other account of the complainant when the complainant is a defaulter. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank and for that prays for dismissal of the complaint.
To prove the case both the complainant and the OP-Bank have adduced evidence- on-affidavit. The complainant has adduced Xerox copies of relevant documents in support of his case.
In this case both the parties have referred to decisions of Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble National Commission to establish the respective case.
The complainant’s main case is that the OP-Bank has no right to recover educational loan of the complainant’s son where he is a guarantor from his pension a/c or in other words from his pension amount.
On the other hand the OP’s main case is that OP has every right to recover the dues from any other a /c of the complainant when the complainant is a defaulter and when he pension amount is credited in his savings A/c , it loses its character.
In this regard the ld. Lawyer for the complainant has advanced argument referring the reported decision in (2009)2 WBLR(SC) 321-in Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs-PNB & Ano that the pension does not lose its character and pension amount cannot be attached relying upon the provisions U/s 60(1)(g) , CPC.
He has also advanced argument referring Pension Act that there is exemption of pension from attachment even by the court.
He has further argued that OP-Bank has not yet filed any suit for realization of the impugned loan nor made any counter-claim for realization of the same in this case before this Forum.
Against the above argument of the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant, Ld. Lawyer for the OP-Bank has advanced argument that there is no specific pension A/C, the pension amount is deposited in the instant savings a/c of the complainant and as soon as the same is deposited it loses its character relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Veerammal –Vs.- Pappusami & Others wherein it has also been observed in para 6 that Section 60(1)(g) , CPC regarding attachment, ceases to operate.
In this regard he has also argued that the question of application of Section 60(1)(g) CPC as to non-attachable is only applicable as long as the pension amount is lying with the employer.
In the aforesaid decision in para 6 it has been observed that the pension and other compulsory deposits covered by the previsions of the Pension Act, would retain their character only till they reach the hands of the employee.
The ld. Lawyer for the OP-Bank has also advanced argument that for execution of any order by this Forum only Sections 25&27 of C.P. Act is applicable and not the provisions u/Or 21 , CPC and for that Section 60(1)(g) CPC will not be applicable and for that the reported decision in (2009)2 WBLR (SC) 321 referred by the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant for attachment is applicable by the Ld. Civil Court.
He has also advanced argument that there is no provision that Bank cannot deduct from Pension for realization of loan.
Further the complainant has referred to a reported decision in Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi in Appeal No. FA-800/06 on 01.12.2008 in between the Punjab Sind Bank Vs. Kamaljeet Singh wherein it has been held that repayment of loan from the Pension account of the Respondent –Guarantor is not permissible under the law and the same are held to be unjustified.
The cause of action of this particular case has been cropped up for deduction of Rs.3700/- from the so called Pension account.
In this case the complainant has filed Xerox copy of Bank statement in respect of two Savings Bank accounts bearing Nos. 30963922132 & 32747677339 in the name of the complainant Sri Mriganka Sekhar Das. In the petition of complaint the complainant has made averment in respect of his SB A/c No. 32747677339 as Pension Account but the documents in respect of said Bank Account has categorically mentioned as simple Savings Account. It is true that in this particular Bank Account the pension of the complainant is deposited.
From the petition of the complaint as well as Bank statement filed by the complainant it is clear that the complainant has two savings accounts out of which pension of the complainant is deposited in the Savings Bank account No. 32747677339.
Admittedly, the complainant took educational loan for his son and the balance demand of the OP Bank in respect of the said loan as on May,2015 is Rs.1,78,100/-.
It is crystal clear that this is not a case for execution of the final order of this Forum or this is not a case filed by the OP Bank for realization of the loan amount rather the complainant has filed this case simply for deduction of Rs.3700/- on 23.5.16 from the alleged Pension Account and Rs.6900/- was deducted on the same day ie. 23.05.06 from another savings account No. 30963922132 of the complainant.
The complainant’s case is only for return back of the same deducted from the Pension Account and for a direction not to deduct any further amount from the alleged Pension Account.
But the complainant has not mentioned any particular amount of claim for returning back of the amount deducted from the Bank Account rather he has filed one sheet of statement in respect of alleged Pension account for the period from 02.05.16 to 15.06.16 where there is only one deduction of Rs.3700/- on 23.5.16. In this sheet in respect of statement of this account there are two transactions as to payment of EMI for Rs.7000/- and Rs. 7000/- on 03.5.16 &15.06.16 respectively and Rs. 8000/- on 15.06.16 is , the loan overdue transfer to Mahendra Narayan Das.
So far as involvement of disputed amount in respect of recovery of impugned educational loan is concerned it appears from the particular disputed Savings Account that there is only one deduction including the cause of action i.e. disputed deduction of Rs.3700/- is concerned. The deduction of EMI and the alleged deduction of Rs.3700/- no challenge has been made by the complainant in turn this Forum has no scope to considered them giving relief.
The amount for refund in respect of deduction of loan amount of Rs.3700/- from the alleged Savings Bank account being very meager amount where the question of repayment of balance dues of Rs.1,78,100/- is concerned, we are of view that this refund will serve no purpose . The basic prayer for not deducting further amount for recovery of the loan amount from this particular savings bank account where pension amount is deposited.
Considering the above discussions including the decision of the Hon’ble Court referred by both parties and also considering the particular facts and circumstances of the case, we are of view that it is better not to recover the loan amount from the Pension Amount deposited in this particular savings bank account No. 32747677339 henceforth as there are several other acts and scope in favour of the OP Bank for realization of the Bank Loan.
Relating to violation of the Interim Order, the complainant submits that in spite of Interim Order restraining the OP Bank from deducting any amount from the Pension Account, the OP Bank deducted Rs.287.50 but there is no cogent evidence to the effect and also has not been given to the OP Bank for hearing , we are of view that the ultimate relief being given to the complainant restraining the OP Bank from recovering the loan amount from the Pension account, we are of view the OP Bank is exempted from any liability as to alleged violation and as such the petition stands rejected.
Regarding the compensation we find the right of the Op Bank to recover the loan amount cannot be ignored and in this case only relief has been granted to the complainant restraining the OP Bank from recovering the loan amount from Pension Account and also there is no basis or details has been filed by the complainant before this Forum, we are of view that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation, he is entitled to get litigation cost of Rs.2000/- only.
From the above discussions as a whole, all the points are disposed of in part.
Hence,
Ordered
That the Consumer Complaint No. 99/2016 be and the same is disposed of on contest in part.
The OP -Bank is directed not to deduct the loan amount from the Pension Account No. 32747677339 of the complainant henceforth.
The OP-Bank is also directed to pay Rs.2000/-as litigation cost to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which the OP Bank is to pay @Rs.50/- per day’s delay as fine by Demand Draft and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
The petition filed by the complainant for violation of Interim Order stands rejected.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
