DATE OF FILING : 30-09-2013. DATE OF S/R : 10-10-2013. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 11-04-2014. Smt. Sujata Dolui, w/o. Sri Avijit Dolui, residing at Kona Daspara Aswathatalagali, P.O. Kona, P.S. Liluah, District – Howrah.------------------------------------------------ COMPLAINANT. - Versus - 1. The Manager, United Bank of India, Shanpur Branch, Makardah Road, P.o. Dasnagar, District – Howrah, PIN – 711105. 2. The Chairman, United Bank of India, 11, Hemantabasu Sarani 6th floor, United Tower House, Kolkata – 1.--------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES. P R E S E N T President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS. Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee. Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha. F I N A L O R D E R 1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.pS. to refund the amounts wrongly clubbed with the principal loan amount by the o.p. bank and a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs together with other reliefs as the o.p. bank while disbursing the house building loan amount of Rs. 6 lakhs to the complainant in spite of proper securities arbitrarily compelled him to take Tata AIG Policy amounting to Rs. 10,300/-. 2. The o.p. bank in the written version contended interalia that they obtained consent of the borrower for the Tata AIG Policy which is mandatory. 3. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination : i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.PS. ? ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? DECISION WITH REASONS : 4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. This is a case where the complainant had to face an attack of double-edged sword – the arbitrary action of the o.p. bank and the compulsion to obtain a Tata AIG Policy. The house building loan of the complainant for Rs. 6 lakhs was sanctioned by the o.p. bank and the amount was disbursed on 16-11-2011, 30-11-2011 and 13-01-2012 with an EMI of Rs. 5,500/- ( Annexure – B ) for 20 years, commencing from February,2012. As collateral security the complainant offered two LIC Policies and the property situated in Mouja Kona was also kept in mortgage with the o.p. Bank. Subsequently at the whims of the o.p. the EMI was fixed at Rs. 6,300/- instead of Rs. 5,500/-. 5. Surprisingly during repayment period the complainant came to learn that a sum of Rs. 9,523/- was added with the principal loan amount on account of insurance premium. Complainant having been placed at the mercy of the o.p. bank was advised to open a saving account and to take a Tata AIG Policy. Accordingly the complainant was compelled to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for the said policy though the Tata AIG Policy had to nexus with the loan account. Subsequently this policy was terminated. 6. Most unfortunate conduct of the o.p. Bank is further revealed when during disbursement of the loan on 16-11-2011, the complainant was ill-advised to avail another policy amounting to Rs. 10,300/- though the policy had no connection with the loan procedure. The complainant had no other alternative than to accede to the advice of the o.p. as the complainant was badly in need of the loan amount. All her requests dated 01-01-2013, 17-01-2013 and her prayer for amicable solution of the grievance went unheeded. 7. The capricious conduct of the o.p. to compel the complainant to obtain Tata AIG Policy twice is unique. The loan amount was disbursed in three installments only to keep the complainant under threat of cancellation if she did not toe up with their plea to obtain the Tata AIG Policy, with whom the o.p. bank has some unholy alliance. The bargain adopted by the o.p. bank is really innovative – either you place your head in the guillotine of infamous insurance companies with whom the o.p. bank has business tie-up or be ready for closed shutter of the bank counter that means to loan. 8. In the instant case the complainant was totally in dark with respect to the benefits or rebates. When the complainant already kept two LIC Policies with the o.p. bank and kept her landed property in mortgage, as collateral security, there was no necessity to bind her with further AIG Policies. There cannot be any better instance of unfair trade practice than the case at handed especially when the complainant has been paying the EMI regularly. 9. The argument put forward by the o.p. bank is very fragile. In fact the borrower i.e., the complainant was left with no other alternative than to accept the capricious proposal of the lender o.p. bank. 10. We have no hesitation in our mind that the complainant was placed in tremendous mental pressure for the arbitrary conduct of the o.p. bank. It is, therefore, a fit case when the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed in part. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 346 of 2013 ( HDF 346 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the O.Ps. The O.P. 1 be directed to refund the amount arbitrarily clubbed with the principal loan amount to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. The complainant is to submit the account of such clubbing before the o.p. no. 1 bank within 15 days from the date of this order. The o.p. bank do pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant towards litigation costs. No order as to compensation. The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( T.K. Bhattacharya ) President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. | 
