SMT. RAVI SUSHA : PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for getting an order directing the Op to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP bank.
The nutshell of the complainant’s case is that son of the complainant Mr.Ajith George had taken an education loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the OP for studying Tool and Dye making course having loan A/c No.42527650000454. The date of maturity of the said loan is 30/6/2023. It is stated by complainant that the OP had disbursed the entire loan amount to the complainant’s son as per loan agreement and the loanee has successfully completed his course and now he is working as a trainee. It is submitted that on 16/2/2015 the complainant approached the OP and informed their willingness to repay the loan. OP informed to repay Rs.398640 as full and final settlement as on 16/4/2015 ie Rs.3,00,000/- as principal amount and Rs.98640/- as interest. Complainant submitted that the assessment of the interest made by the OP is totally incorrect, even then on the next day 17/4/2015 complainant had repaid Rs.324,000/- as Rs.98640/- on the entire interest and Rs.225360/- towards the principal amount. Complainant further stated that thereafter OP contacted the complainant through telephone and informed that OP settled the full principal loan amount of Rs.3,00000/- and the entire interest of Rs.98640/- will be kept as unpaid. It is also submitted that OP further informed that after crediting the principal amount in full, the balance amount of Rs.24,000/- is transferred to the account of Smt.Suma George 2nd co-borrower, without her knowledge or consent which was opposed by the complainant but Op did not care about it. Complainant alleged that even though they had paid Rs.324,000/- and after issuing proper receipt for Rs.324000/-, OP fraudulently accepted Rs.3,00,000/- only for closing the principal amount and intentionally kept the entire interest as unpaid only for charging huge overdue interest. Complainant submitted that as per bank records, the complainant had repaid the entire principal loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- but an interest of Rs.74640/- is due as on 17/4/2015 and being this amount is kept as unpaid interest OP can charge huge overdue interest from the complainant. Hence complainant issued a registered notice to the OP on 23/4/2015 and OP had sent reply to that notice. According to complainant, at the time of giving an amount of Rs.324,000/- to the OP, complainant very clearly instructed that the entire interest due must be adjusted first and then the balance amount may be credit towards the principal. But the OP is crediting the principal of the loan amount is a clear violation of the provisions of natural justice and the action of OP amounts to deficiency of service. Hence filed this complaint for getting the relief as claimed in the complaint.
After receiving notice from this commission, OP entered appearance through counsel and filed their version. The main contentions of OP is that on 16/4/2015 the complainant’s wife Co-borrower Suma George and her elder son Sujith George came to the bank and enquired about the amount to be repaid into the education loan of Ajith George(borrower) and the then Manager in the bank explained all the facts and particulars demanded by them. Accordingly on 18/4/2015, complainant’s wife and Sujith George came to the bank to effect repayment of a total sum of Rs.324000/- into the loan account. At that time the UPS of computer system in the bank was in trouble and operation of account was then not possible. It is pleaded by OP that though the manager expressed their inability to give credit to the account on the spot, they in turn expressed their difficulty to bring the cash back. Accordingly, they made payment of a total sum of Rs.324000/- into the loan account by effect cash payment of Rs.264000/- and transfer of Rs.60,000/- from the SB account of Suma George with the branch, for which manual receipt was given to them. According to OP the total outstanding amount as on that date was Rs.398640/- ie principal amount Rs.3,00,000/- and total interest Rs.98640/-. OP further pleaded that after setting right the UPS on that day, while trying to credit the above amount to the loan account, it was noticed that the loan account has not completed the moratorium period. Therefore the situation was explained to the remitter Mr.Sujith George and his mother Suma George in detail and after their consent a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was credited to the loan account towards the whole principal amount and the balance amount of Rs.24000/- was credited into the SB account No.4252220003929 of Mrs.Suma George to re-credit it to the loan account in suitable manner. But the said Suma George came into the bank on 20/4/2015 and withdrawn and taken away the said sum Rs.24,000/- from her account. Though the manager then asked her not to withdrawn the said sum, she had withdrawn the said amount without any regard to the manager’s request. OP contended that she had withdrawn Rs.24,000/- on the very next day morning with a fraudulent intention to put the bank in trouble by making use of the payment slip for Rs.3,24,000/- with corresponding credit of Rs.3,00,000/- only into the loan account. The complainant who is a total stranger to all the above situation , is trying to make use of the payment slip for Rs.324,000/- instead of the credit of Rs.3,00,000/- to the loan account and the balance amount of Rs.24,000/- into the credit of Suma George. Against that complainant’s allegation that the complainant is liable to pay a Rs.74640/- only towards the principal amount etc are all absolutely false. No sum was remitted into the loan account on 17/4/2015 either by the complainant or any one of the above persons. The amount of Rs.324,000/- was remitted on 18/4/2015 and not on 17/4/2015 as alleged. The bank seal on the payment slip as 17/4/2015 is a mistaken entry. To the notice issued by the complainant, the OP sent a reply stating the facts in detail. There was no deficiency in service from the side of the OP in the transaction involved in this case and hence not entitled to get compensation from OP. Hence prayed the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory cost to the OP.
Evidence in this consists of chief affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of his evidence and produced four documents. The documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A4 and he was cross examined for the OP. Ext.A1 is copy of statement of Account of Mr.Ajith George(borrower) of OP bank for a period from 1/1/2011 to 20/4/2015. Ext.A2 is the cash receipt issued to Ajith George by OP bank which was marked subject to proof. Ext.A3 is the letter issued by the complainant to the manager of OP bank dtd.23/4/2015. Ext.A3 (a) is the postal receipt and Ext.A4 is reply letter of Ext.A3. From the side of OP Senior Manager of regional office of op bank Mr.K.Gopalan filed his chief affidavit and was cross examined as DW1 for the complainant. From the side of OP no documentary evidence was adduced.
Both complainant and OP did not file argument note. Learned counsels of both parties made oral submissions before us. We have considered the oral and documentary evidences brought before us and submissions of both learned counsels.
The undisputed facts in this case are that Mr.Ajith George son of complainant had taken an education loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the op bank on 28/7/2011 and the bank disbursed entire loan amount within the period. It is also an admitted fact that the date of maturity of the said loan is 30/6/2023. The above said facts were established through Ext.A1.
Complainant’s allegation is that on 16/4/2015 the complainant informed to the OP that an amount of Rs.324000/- is readily available for repayment towards the loan amount and then the OP advised to him to remit the interest in full and credit the balance amount towards principal amount and on the next day ie 17/4/2015 the complainant had repaid the entire interest in full and credit the balance amount towards the principal amount ie Rs.98640/- towards interest and Rs.225360/- towards principal amount. So they are entitled to remit Rs.74640/- only towards the principal amount. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant at the argument time expressed the complainant’s willingness to remit that much amount of Rs.74640/- for closing their entire liability in this particular education loan.
On the other hand OP pleaded that they explained all the facts and particulars about the repayment of a total amount ie the total amount outstanding in the loan account as on the date of approaching the complainant’s wife and his son Sujith George, is Rs.398640/-(principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and total interest of Rs.98640/-) and on 18/4/2015 they made payment of a total sum of Rs.324,000/- into the loan account by effect cash payment of Rs.264000/- and transfer of Rs.60,000/- from SB account of complainant’s wife Suma George kept with the same branch. According to OP on that date at that time, the UPS of computer system in the bank was in trouble and operation of account was not possible and after setting right the UPS on the same date, while trying to credit the above amount to the loan account it was noticed that the loan account has not completed moratorium period. Therefore the situation was explained to them and after obtained their consent a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was credited to the loan account towards the whole principal amount and the balance amount of Rs.24000/- was credited into the SB account of Mrs.Suma George to recredit it to the loan account in suitable manner. After that on 20/4/2015 Suma George had withdrawn the said sum of Rs.24000/- without considering the request of OP. OP explained the incident like that . The OP further contended that Smt.Suma George had withdrawn the said amount Rs.24000/- on the next day morning with a fraudulent intention to put the bank in trouble by making use of the payment slip or Rs.324000/- with corresponding credit of Rs.3,00,000/- only into the loan account. According to OP,the complainant is a stranger to all the above situation is trying to make use of the payment slip or Rs.324000/- with corresponding credit of Rs.3,00,000/- only into the loan account and the balance amount of Rs.24000/- credited into the account of Mrs.Suma George, and against the said incident complainant’s allegation that the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.74640/- only towards the principal amount are absolutely false. OP further submitted that no sum was remitted into the loan account on 17/4/2015 either by the complainant or any one of the above persons. The amount Rs.324000/- was remitted on 18/4/2015 and not on 17/4/2015 as alleged. The bank seal on the payment slip as 17/4/2015 is a mistaken entry. Since it was due to an omission to update the date on the seal. Against the notice issued by the complainant, OP sent reply stating all the facts in detail. Thus according to OP the borrower had not remitted any amount towards interest. OP contended that they are not intended to incur any additional charge of interest or overdue interest on the loan account. According to OP out of Rs.324000/-, only 3,00,000/- was remitted towards principal amount and withdrawing Rs.24000/- by the wife of complainant from her account. There is no deficiency in service from their side and not liable to pay compensation . Hence prayed the dismissal of the complaint.
The point to be decided is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP and whether complainant is entitled to get compensation from the OP?
The learned counsel appearing for the OP raised a submission that complainant is not a consumer. For that submission, our view , that the complainant here in is none other than a co-borrower in this education loan. So he is a consumer and has locus standi to file this complaint.
The first dispute between the parties is about the date of remittance of repayment amount. According to complainant they paid repayment amount on 17/4/2015 and the total amount repaid was Rs.324000/-. For substantiating their submission complainant produced Ext.A2 cash receipt. Since it was a photocopy , it was marked subject to proof. But the complainant has not produced the original cash receipt. In Ext.A2 the date of remittance shown is 17/4/2015 and amount Rs.264,000/- and Rs.60,000 /- as transfer account. DW1 deposed that the date 17/4/2015 in Ext.A2 is not correct, it was happened since this transaction was made at the morning of 18/4/2015 and not remembered to alter the date of seal as 18. DW1 was stick on that statement during cross examination also. On a perusal of Ext.A1 statement of account furnished by the complainant, obviously shows that loan instalment payment Rs.3,00,000/- was made on 18/4/2015. So the complainant’s document itself speaks that the payment was made on 18/4/2015. Here there is no such important about the date of payment. The question to be decided is how much amount was remitted by the complainant’s side in the loan account. In Ext.A3 letter sent by the complainant to OP explained the incident happened on the transaction date. According to complainant in Ext.A3 notice also explained that without the consent of complainant, OP bank transferred Rs.3,00,000/- towards principal amount and Rs.24,000/- towards the SB account of his wife(co-borrower) Suma George. Complainant alleged that OP had done such remittance only with an intention to receive overdue interest from them. But the OP has sent detailed reply to Ext.A3 which was marked as Ext.A4. In Ext.A4 OP clearly explained that “ During the moratorium period, one system will accept credit towards principal only or else the loan has to be closed fully and the amount of Rs.24,000/- credited to Suma George’s account after getting her consent with the intention of re-crediting this amount to the loan account after consulting our higher authorities in the matter and also stated that on 20/4/2015, Suma George has withdrawn the amount of Rs.24000/- from her account”. In Ext.A4 ,OP clearly stated that no interest or overdue interest will be charged on the interest portion of the education loan during moratorium period of the loan.
Here from Ext.A3 and A4, we can see that there was some mistake happened on the side of OP unintentionally but such incident will not affect the complainant or the borrower of the loan adversely. PW1 during cross-examination admitted that his wife Suma George had withdrawn Rs.24,000/- from her account. In page 2 Fsâ Bt£]w hIhbm¡msX Cu account  \n¶pw `mcybpsS A¡unte¡v 24000/- cq] credit sImSp¯p F¶XmWv Fsâ Hcp]cmXn . `mcybpsS A¡unsâ passbook ssIbnepv. B 24000/- cq] `mcy ]ntä Znhkw withdraw sNbvXncp¶p. “ This statement of complainant is corroborated the contention of OP.
On analyzing complaint , version, documentary evidence and oral evidence of PW1&DW1 before this commission , we could assess that the incident happened from the side of OP was due to the trouble in computer system in the bank and not intentionally and also by such incident no monetary loss happened to the complainant or his son Aith George(loanee). Hence our considered view is that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such the complainant is not entitled to get compensation from the OP. The points are answered accordingly.
With a finding that since some fault happened on the side of OP unintentionally, they are eligible only to receive the interest amount Rs.98640/- from the borrower (Ajith George)as settled between the parties on 16/4/2015 for closing the liability in this education loan because this consumer complaint is pending before this commission from 2015 onwards.
From the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that since the complainant failed to substantiate their allegations against the OP, this complaint fails and hence it is dismissed. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts:
A1-copy of account statement
A2- copy of cash receipt
A3- lawyer notice and postal receipt
A4-copy of reply notice
PW1-George John-complainant
DW1-Gopalan.K- OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew. Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT