Orissa

Puri

CC/43/2016

Nimai Charan Jena - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager UCO Bank S.C.S College Puri - Opp.Party(s)

Rajeswear Rao Naidu

04 Dec 2018

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PURI

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 43/2016

Present: Sri D.Moharana,President I/c

Ms. S.K.Rath,Member(W)

 

Nimai Charan Jena,S/o.Late Dibakar Jena,

At- 212,Jaya Gouri Enclaave,Near Gadikhana,

Matimandap Sahi,PO/Dist-Puri. ..Complainant

Vrs.

1- The Manager,Uco Bank,

Near SCS College,Puri Branch,Puri

2- The Zonal Manager,Uco Bank,

At-Plot; No.C/2,Uco Bank Bulding ,

Ashoik Nagar,Bhubaneswar,Dist-Khurda.

3- The Chairman and Managing Director,

Uco Bank,B.T.Maharaja Sarini,Near Tea Board,Kolkata-700001.

 

…Opp.Parties

For the Complainant-Sri Raj Kishore Mishra,Advocate .

For the Opp.Parties- Sri Suvendu Dash,Advocate & Associates

 

DATE OF FILING- 05.02.2016

DATE OF DISPOSAL-04.12.2018

 

O R D E R

Sri D.Moharana,President I/C

The case of the complainant in a nut shell is that the complainant is a retired reader in commerce department of S.C.S.College,Puri. He retires from his service on 28.2.2014. During his service period, he had availed a term loan on 26.5.2007 for the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the Uco Bank,SCS College Branch,Puri under Uco shelter special scheme for repair and renovation of his dwelling house . The loan account number was 19360600404485 with interest at the rate of 8.25% per annum on monthly rests basis. The complainant claims that the O.Ps wrongly and erroneously calculated interest on his loan account for which he has to pay excess interest towards his loan account. In this regard, he time and again, put his grievance before the O.Ps,but to no avail. Finally, the complainant approached before the Banking Ombudsman. The Banking Ombudsman after going through his grievances directed the O.Ps to recalculate & recast the loan account of the complainant. The O.Ps after re-examining the loan account came to the conclusion of having charged excess interest of Rs.96,766/- on the complainant and that is being informed to the complainant by its letter No.ZO/BBSR/OSD/169-2015-16 dated 23.9.2015. The O.Ps refunded Rs.92,024/- by deducting Rs.4,742/- towards balance dues on the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant squared up the loan dues of Rs.1,46,304/- and closed the loan account on 25.2.2015 and requested the O.Ps to handover 'No Dues Certificate. The O.Ps handed over the 'No Dues Certificate' to the complainant on 26.2.2015. But the complainant claims that due to wrong calculation of interest by the O.Ps, he could not be able to submit the clearance certificate before the college authorities at the time of his retirement and thereby he was deprived of getting retirement benefits like earned leave encashment and gratuity benefits at the time of retirement which comes to Rs.17,84,000/-. The college authorities held up those benefits due to no dues certificates obtained from the bank by the complainant. However, the O.Ps recalculated and refunded the excess amount by deducting its dues of Rs.4742/-. The complainant herein claims that further claim of Rs.4742/- by the O.Ps after issue of no dues certificate to him is nothing but unfair trade practice and due to deficiency in service of the O.Ps, he has sustained interest on his retirement benefits which he claims to be Rs.1,78,400/-. Hence, this case filed under the provision of Section 12 of the C.P. Act,1986 claiming for refund of Rs.4742/-, payment of Rs.1,78,400/- along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- towards cost of litigation.

2- The O.Ps filed their written version by denying all the allegations of the complainant and raised objection regarding maintainability of the case on the ground of cause of action and jurisdiction under the provisions of the C.P.Act,1986. It is contended that the complainant is not a consumer and the dispute between them is not a consumer disputed for which it is liable to be dismissed. However, regarding the factual aspects of the case, it is stated that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 2003 and,subsequently, the loan was enhanced to Rs.2,50,000/- on the application of the complainant in the year 2006 by executing necessary loan documents in support of the loan. It is further stated that the complainant had agreed to pay interest @ 2.75% p.a above the Uco Bank prime lending rate subject to minimum rate of interest of 8.25% p.a with monthly rests and the rate of interest shall be revised as per directives of the R.B.I. As per the agreement, the complainant had agreed to pay interest at floating rate of interest basis. At the same time, the O.P.1 Bank, was inspected/audited by the department ;and it was found that there was a revenue leakage of Rs.29,63,316/- towards interest in respect of 75 loan accounts those who have availed the loan under the Flood Loan Scheme. However, the amount of Rs.1,14,513/-was charged in the loan account of the complainant towards floating rate of interest. Out of the 75 loan account holders, the complainant approached to the Banking Ombudsman,Bhubaneswar. The complainant challenged the said charging of interest before the Banking Ombudsman,Bhubaneswar. The Banking Ombudsman after examining the case of the complainant, directed to O.Ps to recast the loan account as per applicable floating rate of interest from time to time till 31.12.2013. It is further directed to apply the interest rate prevalent as on 31.12.2013 for the period since 1.1.2014 and during the above period the complainant is not liable to pay any penal interest and to refund the excess amount to the complainant with applicable fixed deposit rate of interest thereon from the dates of recovery of the same. It is also directed to O.Ps to provide a detail statement after recasting the account to the complainant under intimation to the Banking Ombudsman. The account of the complainant was re-casted as per direction of the Banking Ombudsman and during recasting it was detected that a sum of Rs.96,766/- to be refunded to the complainant by O.P No.1 towards excess interest recovered and the interest on the excess interest applied in the account of the complainant. While recasting it revealed that an arrears outstanding interest of Rs.4,742/- which the complainant was required to pay to O.Ps. Accordingly,a sum of Rs. 87,137/- has been refunded /adjusted on 28.1.2015 in the loan account of the complainant and the rest amount of Rs.4,887/- has been paid to the complainant in shape of pay order on 3.10.2015 which is also acknowledged by the complainant. Thus, it is contended that the O.Ps have never deficient in providing service to the complainant and the claim of the complainant is vexatious one which is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

3- We have gone through the case in details and heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties at length. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the complainant in support of the maintainability of the case, cited a decision which is reported in 1(2010) CPJ 59 National Commission in the case of Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Vrs. Abhimanyu Sahoo & others. On the other hand, the O.Ps have also cited the following citations in support of their case.

i- I(2004)CPJ 41 Hon'ble State Commission,Punjab in the case of K.K.Foams Industries & another Vrs. Punjab Financial Corporation & another.

ii- I(2004) CPJ 529 Hon'ble State Commission,Gujurat in the case of Bhagwandas Khubchand Mulani Vrs. Manager,Cargo Motors Ltd.& another.

iii. Writ Petition No.21044 of 2005 of Hon'ble Andhra High Court in the case Birla Sun Life Insurance Company vrs. The Insurance Ombudsman dated 8.7.2015

 

4- We have carefully gone through the citations filed by both the parties . Before averting to the arguments of both the parties, it is to be clarified to the challenge of the O.Ps as to whether the complainant is a consumer and the case is maintainable or not ?

It is not disputed that the complainant has availed a loan bearing loan account No.19360600404485. The O.Ps disbursed the loan amount and at the same time the complainant has also paid interest and principal against the said loan account. When the loan is sanctioned by the O.Ps, the complainant has become a consumer under the O.Ps and he has the right to file consumer complaint under the provisions of C.P.Act,1986 for any negligence or deficiency in service of the O.Ps. In this regard, the verdict of the Hon'ble National Commission,New Delhi is very clear which is placed before us as referred to in the case of Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board reported in I(2010)CPJ 59(NC).

5- We have perused all the documents filed by both the parties. It is a fact that the complainant during the tenure of his service as Reader in Commerce Department in S.C.S.College,Puri had availed the loan called Uco Shelter(Special )Scheme for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to renovate his dwelling house. The rate of interest as agreed upon by the O.Ps and the complainant on the basis of an agreement signed and executed at the time of sanction. The rate of interest is binding upon both the parties as per the agreement. After sanction of loan, the complainant was going on paying the interest and principal to the O.Ps against his loan account lying in the bank of O.P No.1. The complainant was under the impression that the rate of interest was @ 8.25% per annum on monthly rests and after paying certain amount,he felt that the O.Ps have charged interest more than that of the agreement made at the time of loan sanction. He ,thus, informed to the O.Ps for recalculation of his loan account, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to the genuine plight of the complainant. When the O.Ps did not take any action, he was bound to put his grievance before the Banking Ombudsman. It is a fact that Banking Ombudsman is a statutory body constituted under the law to deal exclusively with the grievances of bank related cases and redeem their difficulties explicitly. The Banking Ombudsman took up the matter of the complainant on 18.12.2014 and intimated by its orders to the O.Ps on 9.1.2015. We have carefully gone through the orders of the Banking Ombudsman. The Banking Ombudsman, inter-alia. directed to the O.Ps to recast the loan account of the complainant as per applicable floating rate of interest from time to time till 31.12.2013 and the bank should apply the interest rate prevalent as on 31.12.2013 for the period since 1.1.2014 without charging any penal interest on the complainant. Excess amount,if any, shall be refunded to the complainant together with fixed deposit rate of interest. The complainant also to make good the amount due,if any, to the bank after the recasting and to provide a statement of calculated account to the complainant. It was directed to comply within 7 days of receipt of the order dated 9.1.2015. The O.Ps Bank having regard to the order of the Banking Ombudsman, re-casted the loan account of the complainant and after recasting the account they come to the conclusion that a sum of Rs.96,766/- has been paid excess by the complainant and the same is required to be refunded. At the same time they also find that a sum of Rs.4742/- still remain outstanding due against the complainant. Accordingly, the O.Ps refunded on 28.1.2015 to the complainant a sum of Rs.87,137/- and kept Rs.9629/- to be refunded after recast. Further the O.P deducted an amount of Rs.4792/- as an outstanding amount from Rs.9629/- and the amount of Rs.4887/- remained was paid. However, the O.Ps informed it to the complainant in shape of a statement vide their letter dated 23.9.2015.

6- The complainant retires from his service on 28.2.2014 and he could not get his retirement benefit like E.L. encashment and gratuity due to non-submission of clearance certificate from O.P No.1. The complainant asserted that if his grievance for recasting of his loan account would have been considered by the O.Ps when he informed them, he would have closed his loan account prior to his retirement and would have been got the retirement benefit at the time of retirement. He thus averred that due to negligence on the part of the O.Ps, and non consideration of his grievances, he moved to Banking Ombudsman and after the interference of the Banking Ombudsman his grievance was redeemed. Thus, he claims that he sustained financial loss as well as mental agony .

7- During the course of hearing ,we are clear that the complainant applied for No Due Certificate on 25.2.2015 and the O.Ps without any delay handed over the same to him on 26.2.2015 after receipt of full and final settlement amount. Now the only point remains for consideration as to whether the O.Ps have deficiency in service in dealing with the loan account of the complainant or not?

8- It is clear that the complainant after finding discrepancies in charging of interest on his loan account brought it to the notice of the O.Ps time and again and the O.Ps did not consider the grievance of the complainant. However, he took the shelter of Banking Ombudsman to settle his grievance. On the direction of the Banking Ombudsman, the O.Ps recasted the loan account of the complainant and intimated him in shape of a statement dated 23.9.2015. The total amount should have been refunded Rs.96,766/-. But the O.Ps refunded a sum of Rs.87137/- as on 28.1.2015 and kept Rs.9629/- to be refunded after recast of account. We also find in the said letter that Rs.4742/- has been found outstanding on the complainant. In this regard, we fail to under stand as to why the O.Ps did not refund the total sum by deducting Rs.4742/- as on 28.1.2015. The O.Ps also failed to clarify the things which is vital in the case. Because the amount was refunded on 28.1.2015, but the O.Ps informed to the complainant in its letter on 23.9.2015 after lapse of more than 8 months and that to after closure of the loan account on 26.2.2015.

9- It also reveals that O.P Bank had been inspected/audited by the department and it was found that there was a revenue leakage of Rs.9,29,62,316/- towards interest in respect of 75 loan account holders who have availed the loan under the flood loan scheme. Out of 75 loan account holders, the present complainant is one of them who later approached to the Banking Ombudsman and the O.P Bank did everything according to the direction of the Hon.ble Banking Ombudsman. The grievance of the complainant has been rightly taken up by Banking Ombudsman in time and upon its interference the excess payment of interest has been refunded to him. Hence, till the order of the Banking Ombudsman and its compliance by the O.Ps as on 28.1.2015, the action of the O.Ps can not be considered as deficiency in service, since his grievances after interference of Banking Ombudsman was settled without delay. Therefore, with-holding of retirement benefits during these period can not be saddled with the upcoming result of the Banking Ombudsman.

10- The complainant claims for 10% interest over and above the amount of Rs.17,84,000/- for want of loan clearance certificate. It is clear that there is certain return benefit comprising of earned leave and gratuity but here in this case although the complainant claims for the interest on the amount but there is no substantial evidence available in the case record that the earned leave and the gratuity come to Rs.17,84,000/- . Further, even if, the amount is in existence there is no latches on the part of the O.Ps causing intentionally delaying and blocking the amount on their behalf which attract the provisions of deficiency of service . So on that view, no negligence or irregularities caused by the O.Ps regarding the issue of clearance certificate soon after payment of loan dues. Therefore, on that aspect the claim for interest over and above the said amount is refuted.

11- It is found that the complainant was entitled to get refund of Rs.96,766/- as on 28.1.2015 but the O.Ps refunded him Rs.87,137/-on 28.1.2015 without giving any reason to the complainant about with holding of Rs.9629/- as on 28.1.2015. The account of the complainant was closed on 26.2.2015. But the O.Ps paid Rs.4887/- to him by adjusting Rs.4742/- from Rs. 9629/- towards outstanding amount even after issue of No Dues Certificate in his favor. From this, it is clearly manifested that there is latches on the part of the O.Ps in keeping the amount after clearance of the loan and giving 'No Due Certificate',as a result of which the complainant has suffered not only financially but also mental agony and harassment which amounts to deficiency in service. On this score, the O.Ps are liable to compensate to the complainant for their deficiency in service in dealing with the case of the complainant. However,the complainant has already received the rest amount from the O.Ps and there is nothing left to pay any more regarding the genuine dispute. Hence, it is ordered that:

O R D E R

The case of the complainant is partly allowed on contest against the Opp.Parties. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. The above amount has to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The case is disposed of accordingly.

Dictated and corrected by me this 4^th day of December,2018

 

Sd/-S.K.Rath Sd/-D.Maharana

I AGREE(MEMBER) PRESIDENT I/C