Karnataka

Gadag

CC/33/2015

Mahantayya S Salutagimath, - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S.M.Math,

20 Aug 2016

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY

SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Party (herein after referred in short as OP) u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OP.

2.    The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant availed mortgage loan of Rs.3,25,000/- in the year 2005 bearing Account No.12137220000448. Due to the financial problems, the Complainant failed to pay the regular installments towards the loan account, on 24.03.2014 the Complainant visited the OP for O.T.S. the loan Recovery Officer and Deputy Manager calculated and informed the Complainant to pay Rs.4,25,000/-.

 

          3.      As per instructions of OP, the Complainant paid Rs.3,60,000/- on 25.03.2014 and Rs.65,000/- on 20.05.2014, the OP had kept the said amount of Rs.65,000/- in Suspense Account and stated that the permission will be obtained from the Regional Office for O.T.S. and amount will be credited to the loan account within a week.

 

4.      The Complainant frequently visited the OP for the closure of loan account, after one year on 20.03.2015 the OP replied orally that R.O. had rejected the O.T.S. requisition and asked Complainant to pay the balance amount, further the Complainant made correspondence to the OP and R.O. through letters twice on 22.04.2015 the OP replied stating that the loan is secured by mortgage of house property and OP will pay Rs.6,850/- as a simple interest at 11.50% on the suspense amount (Rs.65,000/-).

 

5.      Again on 28.07.2015, the Complainant visited OP to clear the loan and asked OP about the interest on suspense amount as intimated by the OP in his letter. The OP was silent and collected full amount of Rs.54,844.60 from the Complainant towards the loan account, the Complainant alleges that the OP had collected excess amount of Rs.15,265/- which had already paid by the Complainant by this the Complainant alleged that the OP had committed negligency and deficiency in service.

 

6.      The Complainant issued a legal notice through his counsel on 28.08.2015 to refund the excess amount collected towards interest, but till the date the OP had not responded, hence the Complainant had prayed to direct the OP to refund Rs.15,265/- and to pay Rs.35,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.20,000/- towards the litigation charges. 

 

7.  The Forum received a Complaint and heard on admission. The notices were ordered as such OP appeared through his advocate and filed his Vakalat and Written Version.

 

Brief facts of the Written Version of OP:

The counsel for the OP had denied most of the averments made in the Complaint, it is admitted fact that the Complainant availed a loan and came forward to repay the outstanding amount by O.T.S. Scheme. The OP collected a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- as down payment on 24.03.2014 which had been credited to the loan account and another premium of Rs.65,000/- was deposited on 25.05.2014 which was kept in suspense account subject to the sanction of O.T.S. by the Regional Office.

 

8.      The OP had denied that he had kept the Complainant in dark with false promises and stated that soon after the intimation from R.O. the OP had informed the Complainant of non-eligibility for O.T.S. and waiver of interest of Rs.6,850/- for  Rs.65,000/- from 20.05.2014 to 20.03.2015 and requested to pay Rs.44,620/- plus interest on 01.04.2014. On agreed terms, Ops submitted that the Complainant had approach the bank Manager to get redresses grievances who had declined his plea and confirmed the bank decision. The OP had denied that the Complainant had made letter correspondence with the OP and R.O.

 

9.      Further OP stated that O.T.S. Scheme is to be proceeded by Regional Office; the Branch has no role to play. Hence, the delay in communication of correspondence occurred is cannot be construed as negligency or deficiency of service.

 

10.    Further, OP submitted that loan account of Complainant turned N.P., compound and penal interest is inevitable, so the payment received by the OP is not an excess and the Complainant is not entitled for refund of Rs.15,265/-. Hence, there is no cause of action. Hence OP prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.  

 

11.   In the background of the above said pleadings, the Complainant has examined PW1 in his support of the allegation. The documents produced are:

1) EX C1 Statement of Account.

2) EX C2 to C4 Challen,

3) EX C5 and C6 Letters from the Complainant

4) EX C7 and C8 Letter from the OP,

5)  EX C9 Legal notice,

6) EX C10 Acknowledgement,

7) EX C11 Receipt

8) EX C12 Letter from Office of the Banking ombudsman.

  

These documents have been marked as EX C1 to C12 in the defence of the Complainant. On the other hand, OP filed the Chief Affidavit of one Sri.Nagaraj Kulkarni, Employee and filed one documents as Circular as marked EX. OP1.

 

           12.      This being the pleadings, the points arises before us for adjudication are as follows:

 

1.	Whether the Complainant proves that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP?
2.   3.	Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief?   What Order?

 

Our Answer to the above Points are:-

Point No.1 – Affirmative,

Point No.2 – Partly Affirmative,

Point No.3 - As per the final order.

 

13.    On consideration of pleading, objection, evidence, documents and arguments of the parties, we answer the above points as under:

R E A S O N S

 14.  POINT NO.1:  On perusal of the documents on record, it is found that the Complainant had availed a loan of Rs.3,25,000/- from OP in the year 2005, the Complainant fail to pay regular E.M.I.’s, hence loan account turned N.P. The OP invited the Complainant on 24.03.2014 to settlement the loan in O.T.S. Scheme for which the OP had calculated and informed the Complainant to pay Rs.4,25,000/- as O.T.S., next day Complainant paid Rs.3,60,000/- which had been credited to the loan account. These are the undisputed facts.

 

    15.     Again on 20.05.2014, the Complainant paid Rs.65,000/-  to the OP’s Bank towards the loan account but the OP kept this amount in an suspense account stating that the permission is required from the R.O. for sanctioning of O.T.S. The OP had objected that the O.T.S. Scheme will be process by the Regional Office and the branch has no role in O.T.S. Scheme. Further, the Regional Office has declined the O.T.S. Proposal of the Complainant stating that the mortgage loan is secured loan and it is not eligible for O.T.S.

 

    16.     OP being the Manager of the Bank he was well aware that the loan availed by the mortgage of immovable property is not eligible for O.T.S Scheme. Even the OP had misguided the Complainant and send the proposal for O.T.S. for approval of the O.T.S. for Regional Office, the Regional Office on 26.03.2014 as stated in the letter dated: 22.04.2015 marked as EX C7. After a long period of one year, the OP informed the Complainant through the above said letter that the O.T.S. proposal had been declined by the Regional Office. An amount of Rs.65,000/- which was in suspense account has been adjusted by the loan account on 30.03.2015 and further OP had stated that balance as on 31.03.2015 is Rs.52,870.06 and the interest for Rs.65,000/- from 25.05.2014 to 22.05.2015 Rs.6,850/- at the rate of 11.5% will be paid.

 

   17.     OP took a very long time of one year just to get the approval of the Regional Office knowing well that a secured mortgage loan is not eligible for O.T.S. The OP had misguided the Complainant and kept him in darkness when the Complainant deposited the amount of Rs.65,000/- on  20.05.2014 if the OP has credited the same to the loan account of the Complainant instead keeping it in a suspense account, keeping the amount of the Complainant with OP and paying the interest and compound interest for the outstanding loan amount and getting simple interest for the amount deposited in the bank for repayment of the loan is not justifiable.

 

   18.       With this the OP has immediately credited the amount of Rs.65,000/- to the loan account of the Complainant, the Complainant would have been saved the interest compounded for a period of one year by this we are in a view that the OP had committed deficiency in service. Hence we answer Point No.1 is in affirmative.

 

   19.  POINT NO.2:  In view of the above discussion and observations made we observed that the Complainant had suffered a loss due to the deficiency in service on part of the OP. Hence, Complainant is entitled for a relief in part. Hence, we answer the Point No.2 is in partly affirmative.

 

  20.  POINT NO.3:  For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above points, we proceed to pass following:  

//ORDER//

1. This Complaint is partially allowed.

 

2. The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,265/- (Rupees fifteen thousand two hundred and sixty five) to the Complainant. Further, OP is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) towards litigation charges to the Complainant.
3. OP is directed to comply this order within a period of 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is liable to receive an interest @ 12% p.a. for Rs.15,265/- till realization.

4.  Send a copy of this Order to both parties free of cost.  

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 20^th day of August, 2016)

 

Member

Member

President