DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 23^rd day of January, 2023

Present    :  Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

                :  Smt.Vidya A., Member             

                :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                             

                  Date of Filing:  17.03.2022                                              

CC/50/2022

1. P.S.Sujeev

Q.No. 350.A, Railway Colony

Kallekulangara (PO), Hemambika Nagar

Olavacode, Palakkad – 678 009

2.     Bindhu Sujeev

Q.No. 350.A, Railway Colony

Kallekulangara (PO), Hemambika Nagar

Olavacode, Palakkad – 678 009                  -                  Complainants

(Parties-in-person)

Vs

1.      The Manager

         Union Bank, Hemambika Nagar

         Opp. Kendriya Vidyalaya

         Kallekulangara (PO), Olavacode

         Palakkad – 678 009

 2.      Union Bank

Regional Office

Kozhikode K.S.H.B Complex

Eranhipalam, Kozhikode – 673 006            -              Opposite parties

(1^st and 2^nd opposite party by Adv. K.Hanitha)

O R D E R

By Smt. Vidya A., Member

1. Pleadings of the Complainant in brief

    The complainants availed a personal loan from the 1^st opposite party on 11/10/2018 for an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs with loan account No. 478966590140316 and another loan of Rs. 3 lakhs on 12/12/2019 with loan account No. 478906500140322.  Complainants have given standing instruction to debit Rs. 11,000/- towards EMI from the 1^st complainant’s salary account every month and it was debited accordingly.  But for the last few months, the amount was not debited and they didn’t get any information regarding this.  All of a sudden, without giving any intimation, the Bank freezed their salary account.

          They came to know about this when they approached the bank in connection with their daughter’s education.  They requested the manager to release at least the amount needed for meeting their day-to-day requirements; but didn’t get any positive response from the part of the Bank.  Because of the financial crisis, their daughter had to stop her Nursing studies.  All these happened because of the deficiency in service on the part of the Bank Manager.  They are ready to pay the balance in the loan amounting to Rs. 90,000/- as EMI.  Aggrieved by the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, this complaint is filed for getting a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs from the opposite parties.

2. On receiving notice from this Commission, the opposite parties entered appearance and Vakalath was filed on their behalf.  The case was referred to ‘settlement’ of 27/05/2022 and on that day opposite parties sought time for settling the mater.  On 03/06/2022, the opposite parties submitted that complainant’s account is already regularized.

          But the opposite parties failed to file the version within the statutory period and their version was accordingly rejected.  Later the opposite parties filed petition to review the order rejecting their version and it was dismissed.  They also filed a petition challenging the maintainability of this complaint in view of an alternate forum; Banking Ombudsman.  It was also dismissed stating that this Commission has Jurisdiction to entertain the matter if there is an allegation of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

3. The 2^nd complainant filed proof affidavit for and on behalf of both complainants.  Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked in evidence.  Opposite parties filed notes of argument. 

4. Points arising for consideration in this case are

1. Whether the freezing of the salary account of the 1^st complainant was as per law?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4. Reliefs as cost and compensation.

5. Point No: 1

As per the complaint, the complainants availed two loans from the 1^st opposite party; for Rs. 2 lakhs on 11/10/2018 with Loan account No: 478966590140316 and another for Rs. 3 lakhs with Loan account No: 47896500140322 on 12/12/2019.  They had given standing instruction to the Bank to debit Rs. 11,000/- towards EMI from the 1^st complainant’s Salary received from Railway every month and the opposite party Bank was regularly debiting that amount.  But for the last few months before filing of this complaint, no amount was debited and the Bank had not given any intimation about this to the complainants.  Because of Covid-19 pandemic and death of first complainant’s parents, they did not enquire about this.  But all of a sudden, without giving any intimation the Bank freezed their salary account and they came to know about this only when they approached the Bank in connection with their daughter’s education loan.  Inspite of their repeated requests, the bank was not ready to release at least the amount for meeting their day-to-day expenses.  Because of this, their daughter had to discontinue her studies, they had to sell their vehicle as they could not repay the vehicle loan and they had to borrow from others to meet their expenses.  They also admitted that they are ready to pay the balance in the loan as EMIs.   

6. Complainants themselves admitted that they have defaulted loan re-payment.  When there is continuous default in loan re-payment, the account will be declared as NPA.  When there is default in re-payment, normally the Bank send messages to the defaulters.  Further, the complainants had given standing instructions to debit the EMIs from 1^st complainant’s salary.  So when the amount comes in the salary account, it will be automatically debited towards the loan by the system.  The bank is legally entitled to debit the amount when the loan account is overdue.  It is as per the RBI Guidelines.  Point No: 1 is decided in favour of the opposite parties.

7. Points 2 to 4

    There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in blocking the account of the complainant and debiting the overdue amount towards the loan account.  Once the entire overdue amount is collected, the Bank regularized the savings account of the complainant. 

          The complainant’s prayer is to give directions to the opposite parties to regularize their account and to pay compensation for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by them.  As the 1^st prayer is already complied with, we are not inclined to allow the 2^nd prayer as the complainants had defaulted payment of the EMIs and the opposite party Bank had only debited the amount required for covering the overdue installment.

          Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

     Pronounced in open court on this the 23^rd day of January, 2023.

                                                                                              Sd/-                                                                                                            Vinay Menon V

                                                 President 

                                                       Sd/-

                                                    Vidya A

                            Member   

                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                         Member

APPENDIX

Documents marked from the side of the Complainant –

Ext.A1: Request letter dated 09/03/2022.

Ext.A2: Certificate from R.Sankar Memorial School of Nursing dated 11/01/2022.

Ext.A3: Car loan closure certificate dated 06/04/2022.

Ext.A4: Possession Letter dated 05/04/2022.

Documents marked from the side of opposite party – Nil

Witness examined from the side of the complainant – Nil

Witness examined from the side of the opposite party - Nil

 Cost – Nil

NB:   Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted         in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the         Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations,         2020 failing which they be weeded out.