C.F. CASE No. : CC/2013/92
COMPLAINANT : Mohan Kumar Mondal,
S/o Late Nagendra Nath Mondal,
Radhanagar, Karbala Math,
P.O. Ghurni, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia
– Vs. –
OPPOSITE PARTY / OP: The Manager,
United Bank of India,
Krishnagar Branch,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia (W.B.)
PRESENT : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT
: SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 24th March, 2014
-: J U D G M E N T :-
The petitioner has filed the instant case against Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Krishnagar Branch, Krishnagar, Dist. Nadia under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The case of the petitioner:-
The petitioner took a personal loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from OP bank and the loan amount was transferred to the petitioner’s account (0215300032674) on 12.11.10. At the time of sanctioning of the loan the field officer took various signatures upon some typed papers as well as blank papers and the OP bank agreed to debit Rs. 2,000/- as EMI for the said loan from the savings account. When the EMI was not deducted from the savings account of the petitioner, the latter on enquiry came to know that the OP has misplaced the loan documents for that reason the EMI could not be deducted. The petitioner also opened his salary account 0215010503020 with the OP bank on 27.06.2011 and the EMI of Rs.8,500/- for the house building loan is getting deducted from that account. The petitioner was compelled by the OP bank to give an undertaking to deduct EMI of Rs.5,000/- towards the personal loan from his salary account and accordingly bank deducted Rs.5,000/- on 02.03.2013. The petitioner also paid Rs. 40,000/- to the personal loan account and the OP bank at the time of taking this amount promised the relinquish the interest for the personal loan upto Jan, 2013. But the OP bank did not keep their promise and debited Rs. 40,000/- towards loan and up-to-date interest and started debited Rs. 5000/- per month. Now the petitioner is under financial hardship because he has to pay Rs. 8,500/- towards house building loan and Rs. 5,000/- towards his personal loan. The petition sent a letter through his advocate for relinquishing the interest and for reducing the EMI from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.2,000/- but the OP bank refused to keep this verbal promise. The OP is negligent because he did not deduct the EMI for the personal loan regularly and for that reason the petitioner had to pay the penal interest as well as the enhanced amount of EMI which is becoming a hardship for him. Finding no other alternative the petitioner has come before the Forum for redressal with following prayers.
- Direction upon the OP to relingquish the interest of the personal loan up to January,13 and debit Rs. 2,000/- instead of Rs. 5,000/- towards EMI.
- Direction upon the OPs to pay the petitioner a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and pain along with litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-.
The OP has contested the case by filing written version. In his written version the OP admitted that the fact of taking a personal loan to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the petitioner, but denied the amount of EMI to be deducted from the savings account from the petitioner. According to the OP the EMI to be paid by the petitioner was fixed for Rs. 2348/- and not Rs.2,000/- and there was no standing instruction from the petitioner that the EMI was to be deducted from his savings account. The OP also denied the fact of giving pressure upon the petitioner to clear the loan by way of debiting his salary account to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- every month. On the other hand the petitioner himself failed the deposit monthly instalment within time and as a result, he was compelled to give such an undertaking to clear his dues. So the OP is not deficient in the service and hence the instant case is to be dismissed with cost.
From the pleadings of the petitioner, written version of the OP and the documents filed by both parties we frame the following issues:-
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No. 1: Is the petitioner a consumer under the OPs?
Point No.2: Does the OP suffer from deficiency in service?
Point No. 3: Is the petitioner entitled to get relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No. 1:
The petitioner is a consumer under OP as he took personal loan 0215300032674 from the OP of Rs. 1,00,000/- and for that reason the OP has to maintain a full statement of account each year.
Point No. 2 & 3:
The point No. 2 & 3 are taken up together for the sake of discussion and brevity. The petitioner always had a favourable balance in the savings account from where the OP bank could deduct the EMI for the personal loan but there was no written instruction from the petitioner on this score. The sanction letter UPL – 020153300032674 dtd. 11.11.2010 was accepted and signed by the petitioner which reveals that the EMI was fixed at Rs.2,350/- per month and to be paid within three days from the date it falls due so it can be construed from the language itself that the OP bank was not given any instruction to debit the EMI from the petitioner’s savings account and rather it was a responsibility of the petitioner to deposit the EMI at the branch within the stipulated time. Consumer Forum cannot be moved to delay the payments of loan on EMI or reduction of interest. So he cannot shoulder the responsibility of debiting the EMI on the OP, hence, the OP is not deficient in his services and so the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
DD paid is correct.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/13/92 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without cost.
Let a copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
