Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

cc/239/2014

A.Mohanraj,S/o.A.Ayyanar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,SBI - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.R.S.Anandan

29 Nov 2022

ORDER

                                            Date of Complaint Filed :03.06.2014

                                           Date of Reservation      : 04.11.2022

                                           Date of Order               : 29.11.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                        THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                :  MEMBER  I 

                        THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,         : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 239/2014

TUESDAY, THE 29^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

A. Mohanraj, S/o A. Ayyanar,

P/22/2, Type- IV Quarters,

MES Pump House,

Seven Wells, Old Jail Road,

Minit, Chennai - 600 001                                                                                                          .…  Complainant

-Vs-

1.The Manager,

   State Bank of India,

   Mudfort Branch,

   Secunderabad.

 

2.The Branch Manager,

   State Bank of India,

   ATNK & HQ Branch,

   Island Grounds,

   Chennai – 9.                                                                                                                              ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant             : M/s. R.S. Anandan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties        : M/s. P.D.Audikesavalu

 

        On perusal of records and on endorsement made by the Complainant to treat the written arguments as oral arguments, and upon hearing the oral argument of the Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R.Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages and compensation for forcing the Complainant to resort legal remedy and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards costs.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The 1^st Opposite Party bank deducted periodically a sum of Rs. 15,089/- towards loan amount installments (EMI) directly from the Complainant's saving bank account. Though an amount of Rs. 14,526/-has to be deducted for each month EMI, the 1^st Opposite Party bank deducted a sum of Rs. 15,089/- as monthly installments. The Loan agreement copy was not at all given to him. The 1^st Opposite Party bank had clearly accepted that the monthly Installment amount as Rs. 14,526/- as per the agreement, but there was absolutely no reasons to deduct a sum of Rs. 15,089/- as monthly installments. In fact the 1^st Opposite Party bank most of the time deducted more than the required amount towards installments. Because of the pressure of work he failed to notice the same as he has not verified his savings bank account then and there. In fact his salary was directly credited by his employer in the said savings account only. The deduction of the 1^stinstallment towards loan amount started from 1.11.2011 itself and a sum of Rs.15,089/- was deducted as monthly installments. The 1^st Opposite Party bank had deducted an excess sum of Rs. 563/- that too without any notice. Further had it been periodically deducted from that date the same would have comes to an end by November 2013 itself. He had retired from service on 31.12.2013. As per the agreement 24 equated monthly installments has to be deducted. The installment starts on 1.11.2011 and the 24^thinstallment ends on 1.10.2013 itself. Having failed to deduct the installments amount periodically the 1^st Opposite Party and the second Opposite Party deducted towards loan amount in an irregular manner and caused mental agony to the Complainant. Thereby caused deficiency in service. He was transferred to Chennai on 7.3.2012 itself. He had operated his savings bank account at Mud fort branch, Secunerabad till 22.6.2012. A balance amount of Rs.5,593.96 is still in credit of that account. On transfer to Chennai he has opened a new account at Chennai on 30.4.2012 in the Opposite Party bank and the loan recovery has also been effected from Chennai. From 1.9.2012 onwards the loan amount recovery has been made from the Chennai account by the 2^nd Opposite Party. Even the 2^nd Opposite Party deducted from the Complainant saving bank account more than the required amount for each installments without any notice and the said action of the 2^ndOpposite Party clearly proves the deficiency in service. The 1^st Opposite Party and the 2^nd Opposite Party bank has made the following deduction from the savings account of the Complainant maintained with the Opposite Parties bank on various dates from 01.11.2011, thereby as on 30.03.2013 a sum of Rs.3,91,246/- has been deducted as above and then reimbursed Rs.1,20,000/-. Therefore a sum of Rs. 2,71,246/- has been deducted from his savings bank account towards the loan amount by both the opposite parties. In fact as on 30.3.2013 the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties jointly ought to have deducted a sum of Rs. 2,46,942/- (at the rate of Rs. 14,526/- per installments i.e, for 17 installments from 1.11.2011 to 30.3.2013) alone. But the opposite parties jointly have deducted a sum of Rs.24,304/- in excess of the loan repayment amount as on 30.3.2013. At the time of release of loan amount the 1^stOpposite Party forced him to purchase a Lap Top and made deduction from the saving account of the Complainant for the said purchase. From June 2013 onwards the 2^nd Opposite Party deducted excess amount from his saving account, he was forced to receive the salary through another bank after proper intimation to the 2^nd Opposite Party bank as the Complainant could not utilize his money from the said bank for his heart ailments. Because of excess deduction he could not use his income for the maintenance of his family also. Most of the time after purchase of essential things for the family when the debit card was produced to the shopkeepers he was informed that the same could not be debited for want of funds. Thereby his dignity was questioned and put to untold mental agony. The said action of the opposite parties clearly proves the deficiency in service. At the time of agreement as a measure of security the 1^st Opposite Party have obtained five blank cheque leaves. Because of the failure of the 1^st Opposite Party to deduct the periodical installments, there was accumulation of loan outstanding amount for which he was in no way responsible for the same. Then without any notice to him, the1^st Opposite Party had deposited the cheque leaves for clearance which have been furnished by him as a measure of security knowingly that he was not having sufficient balance in his saving bank account. Further after the cheque was bounced back, issued a legal notice as if he had dishonestly cheated the 1^st Opposite Party and caused illegal loss of Rs.96,989/- for not repaying the loan amount and interest thereon, which came to his knowledge only on the date of retirement from service on 31.12.2013. This clearly exhibited the high hand action of the 1^st Opposite Party which was unwarranted from a Manager of a Nationalized bank and the same was also punishable under IPC for criminal offence for misusing the cheque leaves submitted by him without proper notice. When he had approached the 2^ndOpposite Party bank branch for Issuing a Demand Draft, the 2^nd Opposite Party failed to honour the request. Further the 2^nd Opposite Party bank had also refused for transaction in his account. Those actions clearly prove the deficiency in service to an account holder. Having deducted excess amount than the loan installments due amount and also failed to deduct periodical installments from the Complainant's saving account, in order to embrace and to degrade him among the officers in his office, sent notice to the Department higher officers where he was working and thereby tarnished his image in the office. The said action of opposite parties also clearly shows and exhibits their high hand action which was beyond their duties and responsibilities. The action of degrading his status for the failure of the opposite parties to deduct the agreed periodical installments from his saving bank account exposes their inefficiency and proves the deficiency in service. On 05.02.2013 and on 15.03.2013 he had sent notice to 1^st Opposite Party to forward the statement and balance loan amount to avoid court case, with no reply. Further the opposite parties have not issued any demand notice for non- payment of further installments. In fact as on 30.3.2013 the opposite parties have deducted over and above the installment due amount. The 1^st Opposite Party along with the 2^ndOpposite Party have deducted a sum of Rs. 24,304/-in excess of the loan due amount. Therefore after adjusting the excess deducted amount of Rs.24,304/- as on 30.3.2013, loan outstanding amount as Rs.87,378/- only has to be paid. whereas from 18^th installment amount to 24^th installment amount at Rs.14,526 X 7 months which comes to Rs.1,01,682/- and that too after deducting excess amount of Rs. 24,3047/- collected, a sum of Rs.77,378/- has to be paid and another Rs. 10,000/- which they have re-credited in his account on 03.04.2013. Because of the failure of both of the opposite parties such loan outstanding amount accumulated and for which he was in no way responsible. Having committed deficiency in service the 1^st Opposite Party have issued false notice and filed false suit and consequently his entire retirement benefits have been delayed. He had also issued a legal notice on 19.03.2014 calling upon the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as damages and compensation for the deficiency service caused by them at frequent intervals, in spite of receipt on 20.03.2014 itself, till date there was no reply on the same. Hence the complaint.

Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant had been banking with the Opposite Party at its Mudfort Branch since 25.10.2009 and he had availed Xpress Credit Term Loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- at that branch on 28.05.2010 vide account No. 31188403506. After making repayments in equated monthly installments till September 2011, the Complainant sought for renewal of the loan with enhancement of limit and also wanted to avail the benefits under the CYBER PLUS scheme in which a Laptop of HCL company was provided at concessional rate. At his request, theyhad sanctioned a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 24.10.2011 vide account No. 32003928675 and credited the entire proceeds of that loan into his Savings Bank account bearing No. 20049809460. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.43,603/- was debited from his Savings Bank account and credited to his existing loan account bearing No. 31188403505 for its closure and another sum of Rs.24,300/- was debited from his Savings Bank account towards the cost of the Laptop supplied by HCL with debit confirmation from him The term loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- availed by the Complainant was repayable in 24 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 14,526/- each subject to change in the rate of interest from time to time. For the said purpose, the Complainant by his letter dated 24.10.2011 had undertaken that his salary and terminal benefits shall be remitted into his aforesaid Savings Bank account maintained in that Branch and had given standing instruction authorizing them to debit the equated monthly installments from that account for adjustment towards the balance outstanding in the loan account till its liquidation. On increase of the rate of interest the equated monthly installments was changed from Rs. 14,526/- to Rs. 15,089/- which was carried in the software in the computer system for making deductions every month in his Savings Bank account towards repayment of the said Term Loan. The computer system which had debited twice the sum of Rs.15,089/- in his Savings Bank for the month of November 2011 on 01.11.2011 and 02.11.2011 by inadvertence and on realizing that error, the excess amount of Rs.15,000/- was re-credited to his Savings Bank account on 14.11.2011.The Complainant with malafide intention of preventing them from recovering the equated monthly instalments from his Savings Bank account, started to draw the entire cash through ATM immediately after his salary was credited to his account from January 2012 onwards resulting in disturbing the recovery track at several intervals. Hence, they were constrained to set 'hold' in his Savings Bank account in order to ensure that the amount required for repayment towards equated monthly instalments is made available. When matters stood so, the Complainant got himself transferred from Secunderabad to Chennai and without informing their Mud fort Branch at Secunderabad, he had opened a new Savings Bank account in the ATNK & K Branch of the Opposite Party at Chennai for remitting his monthly salary from April 2012 onwards in gross violation of the undertaking given by him at the time of availing the Term Loan. It was only through hectic efforts taken that it came to be known from the guarantor in the last week of August 2012 about the change in the place of his employment and the clandestine opening of a new account in their another branch at Chennai for receiving his monthly salary in order to avoid recoveries towards the equated monthly instalments of the Term Loan. In pursuance thereof, a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- had been recovered from the Complainant at irregular intervals, but the amount under the monthly equated instalments could not be recovered on the actual dates on which it had fallen due resulting in additional amount becoming recoverable towards interest for delayed payment in terms of the contract between the parties. Since the Complainant was retiring from service on 30.12.2013 and he would not be receiving salary from his employer thereafter, they did not have any other option than to institute a suit bearing O.S. No. 620 of 2013, on the file of First Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad for recovery of a sum of Rs.98,201/- with further interest and costs, remaining recoverable from the Complainant towards that Term Loan. An interim order was also obtained in I.A. No. 1323 of 2013 in that suit for a direction to the employer of the Complainant to withhold the sum of Rs.98,201/- from his terminal benefits, pending disposal of that suit. The cheques issued by the Complainant towards part re-payment of the Term Loan had been dishonoured for insufficient funds when presented for payment and criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has been launched against him in that regard. As a counter blast to the aforesaid recovery action taken by them against the Complainant, the instant complaint has been preferred with obvious ulterior motives. The depiction of facts supra alone reflects the true state of affairs of the matter and the allegations in the complaint to the contrary were specifically denied as false and misleading. It could be seen that the nature of disputes raised by the Complainant involving complicated facts require detailed evidence and examination of parties for complete and effectual adjudication and in the circumstances, the Complainant has to be relegated to the Civil Court for agitating his claims, if any, and he cannot invoke the summary procedure under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly when the Opposite Party had already instituted a civil suit for establishing its claim against him. Inasmuch as the alleged cause of action for the complaint, viz., the recovery of the dues under the Term Loan availed by the Complainant from the Opposite Party had taken place at Secunderabad and no part of that cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum, and the 1^stOpposite Party is also carrying on business at Secunderabad, outside the territorial limits of jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum and no permission as required under Section 11(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been obtained by the Complainant to institute this proceeding, the complaint is liable to be rejected on this sole ground itself. The Complainant does not have any real cause of action or any clear right to sue against them and whatever is stated in that regard in the complaint was purely illusory and cannot be countenanced in law. The demand for compensation made by the Complainant in his legal notice dated 19.03.2013 as well as this complaint is absolutely unjustified for the reasons explained in detail supra. They had not committed any negligence or deficiency in rendering service as alleged. They are fully justified in claiming the amount due from the Complainant as per the terms of the contract between the parties as well as the legal proceedings instituted in that regard for recovering its dues and the Complainant cannot take any exception to their bonafide action. In as much as it is the deposits of the general public invested with the Opposite Party that forms the corpus to lend by way of loans, it is incumbent upon the bank to ensure that expeditious action is taken for recovery when there is wilful default in re- payment by recalcitrant borrowers like the Complainant. In this incontrovertible fact situation, if any indulgence is shown in this regard at this distance of time to the Complainant, who has deliberately refused to repay the dues all along without any acceptable explanation whatsoever, it would tantamount to defeat public interest by unjustly enriching the Complainant at the cost of public exchequer. In any event, the Complainant has not suffered any loss or injury to be compensated. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to any relief claimed and such claims made have no basis whatsoever. This is a clear case exposing the blatant abuse of the legal process warranting imposition of exemplary costs under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for fomentation of such frivolous and vexatious complaint against them. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

3.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7  were marked. The Opposite Parties submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Parties, documents Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-11, were marked.

Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

4. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled?

Point Nos.1and 2:-

It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had availed term loan to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- from the 1^st Opposite Party branch at Secunderabad. It is also not in dispute that the said loan amount to be paid in 24 equated monthly installments with effect from 03.11.2011 at Rs.14,546/- per month.

The Disputed facts of the Complainant were that the monthly installment was deducted at Rs.15,089/- instead of Rs.14,526/- from the commencing date, i.e., from November, 2011 and the Opposite Parties Bank had failed to deduct the monthly installments periodically, which resulted in outstanding and for delayed interest for no fault of him and was due to negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties Bank. If at all the Opposite Parties would have deducted the agreed EMI’s of Rs.14,526/- on the Scheduled dates periodically, the loan would have been terminated on the end date as per the loan agreement. The Opposite Parties Bank had deducted an excess amount of Rs.24,304/- from his savings bank account and the claim made of Rs.87,378/- from 18^thinstallment amount to 24^thinstallment amount was wrong and as on 30.03.2013 only a sum of Rs.77,378/- has to be paid as another sum of Rs.10,000/- which was re-credited in his account on 03.04.2013.Further he had operated his savings bank account with 1^st Opposite party till 22.06.2012 and had opened a new account with 2^nd Opposite party bank at Chennai on 30.04.2012 and from 01.09.2012 loan amount recovery was made from Chennai account by the 2^nd Opposite party.

The Contentions of the opposite Parties were that the Complainant was originally sanctioned with a term loan in the year 2009 by the 1^st Opposite Party, since he had sought for enhancement of term loan amount, his request was acceded and a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to be paid in 24 equated monthly installment was sanctioned by the 1^st Opposite Party on 26.10.2011, with effect from 03.11.2011. The monthly installment to be deducted was Rs.14,546/- but the same depends upon the prevailing rate of interest, which was agreed and signed by the Complainant. As there was change in interest a sum of Rs.15,089/- was deducted from the Complainant’s savings Bank account. The installment was deducted periodically, even the installment deducted twice was re=credited to his account immediately. It was the Complainant who had withdrawn his salary immediately after credit made by his employer from his account in order to avoid the deduction of legitimate installment to be made by the Opposite Parties Bank and further the Complainant had got transferred from Secunderabad to Chennai and they found it difficult to recover the outstanding dues under the term loan amount extended by them. Only in the month of August, 2012 through the Guarantor they had come to know about his transfer and thereafter the opening of a new account in the 2^nd Opposite party Bank. Only thereafter they had recovered a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- at irregular intervals, but the amount under regular monthly instalments could not be recovered on actual/scheduled dates, which resulted in additional amount towards interest for delayed payment in terms of the contract. As the retirement date of the Complainant from service was on 30.12.2013 and he would not receiving his salary from the employer, they had filed a suit before the First Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad for recovery of a sum of Rs.98,201/- in O.S.No. 620 of 2013 and had obtained an interim order in I.A.No. 1323 of 2013 directing the employer from withholding the sum of Rs.98,201/- from his terminal benefits pending disposal of the main suit. Further the Cheques issued by the Complainant towards pre=payment of the Term loan were got dishonoured for insufficient funds and separate proceedings has been initiated against him. Only with ulterior motive to counterblast their legal action in recovering the outstanding dues the present complaint has been filed by the Complainant. Further as the term loan was availed at Secunderabad by the Complainant and the recovery of the outstanding dues was taken by the 1^st Opposite Party, no part of cause of action arose at Chennai and this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. As the issue involved needs a detailed evidence and examination of parties for complete and effectual adjudication, only the Civil Court has Jurisdiction and the Complainant cannot invoke summary procedure under the Consumer Protection Act.

On discussion made above and on careful reading of the Complaint, written version and the exhibits marked on either side, on knowing the fact that the transfer of the Complainant from Secunderabad to Chennai and the opening of a new account with the 2^nd Opposite Party bank, through the Guarantor, the recovery was made from the 2^nd Opposite Party’s Bank Branch by the 1^st Opposite Party, which was also admitted by the 2^nd Opposite Party. Hence this Commission has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Further the averments of the Complainant that the Opposite Parties Bank in violation of the terms and conditions of the Term Loan Agreement had deducted an excess amount from the monthly instalments, as only Rs.14,526/- to be deducted instead a sum of Rs.15,089/-, which fact was not noticed by him due to his work and further the Opposite Parties Bank had failed to deduct the monthly instalments periodically, which resulted in additional interest, are not legally sustainable, as the Complainant himself had admitted in Ex.A-2, letter dated 15.03.2013 addressed to the 1^st Opposite Party that the monthly installment to be deducted as Rs.15,089/- and further that he is due and payable to a sum of Rs.77,378/- as well as the legal action taken against him by the Opposite Parties in recovering the legitimate dues by initiating a Civil suit in O.S.No.620 of 2013 before Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and having obtained a direction in IA.No. 1323 of 2013 against his employer in withholding the terminal benefits towards the outstanding dues of Rs.98,201/- was not disclosed and suppressed the same before this Hon’ble Commission. Hence it is clear that the Opposite Parties had not committed any negligence and claiming of legitimate dues from the Complainant by the 1^st Opposite Party Bank under the Term Loan Agreement entered into by the Complainant with the 1^st Opposite Party, does not amount to deficiency of service. The Complainant had failed to establish and prove the deficiency of service alleged against the Opposite Parties 1 and 2. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Opposite parties 1 and 2 had not committed any deficiency of service and the act of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 had not caused any mental agony or monetary loss to the Complainant. Accordingly Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered.   

Point Nos.3 and 4:-

As discussed and decided Point No.2 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint. And hence the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos. 3 and 4 are answered.

In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 29^th of November 2022. 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	-	Xerox copy of the Saving bank pass book
Ex.A2	15.03.2013	Letter by the Complainant to the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A3	10.05.2013	Letter by the Complainant to the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A4	06.11.2013	Legal notice by the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A5	19.03.2013	Legal notice by the Complainant
Ex.A6	20.03.2014	Proof of delivery of legal notice to 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A7	21.03.2014	Proof of delivery of legal notice to 1st Opposite Party

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

Ex.B1	24.10.2011	Letter of Arrangements
Ex.B2	24.10.2011	Irrevocable Letter
Ex.B3	16.11.2013	Legal notice (copy)
Ex.B4	16.11.2013	Letter to Complainant employer
Ex.B5	26.11.2013	Reply letter from Complainant Employer
Ex.B6	-	Statement of Account TL Xpress Credit Account No.31188403506
Ex.B7		Statement of Account Term Loan Account No.32003938675
Ex.B8	-	Statement of Account Saving Bank Account No.200498909460
Ex.B9	29.11.2013	Plaint in O.S. No.620 of 2013 on the file of City Court at Secunderabad
Ex.B10	10.12.2013	Order passed in I.A.No.1323 of 2013 in O.S. No.620 of 2013
Ex.B11	31.10.2014	Copy of letter

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT