DATE OF FILING: 2.12.2013.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 10.6.2016
Dr. N.Tuna Sahu, Member.
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant was working as Field Assistant under the O.P.No.2 and 3 from 1.1.1985 and retired from the service on dated 30.6.2013. In course of employment, the complainant availed housing loan of Rs.50,000/- which was to be deducted @ Rs.1055/- per month from the salary bill and deposited with the O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 & 3 were accordingly authorized to do so. The monthly deduction of Rs.1055/- was to be deducted in 72 installments i.e. 6 (six) years. In spite of the conditions aforementioned, the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 deducted 69 and 34 installments totaling to 103 installments i.e. 31 installments over and above, the actual installments thereby deducting Rs.32,705/- in excess. Instead of deducting Rs.75,960/- the O.P.Nos.2& 3 have deducted a sum of Rs.1,08,665/- in contravention to the agreement. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. No.1 to refund of excess money of Rs. 32,750/- along with interest @9% per annum, compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs.3000/- towards litigation cost in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the O.P.No.1 filed written version/written argument through his advocate. It is stated the case is barred by law of limitation, so the same is liable to be dismissed. There is no cause of action arose to file the present complaint against the O.Ps. The allegations are leveled in the complaint petition are false, vague, baseless and concocted to make out a false case as against the O.Ps. The complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.1,70,699/- and since the EMI was fixed for 72 months @ Rs.1055/- total amount payable by him should have been Rs.75,960/- and he has claimed for recovery of excess amount of Rs.96,739/-. The deposit shown vide statement of current account of ORHDC at Andhra Bank at Rayagada Branch, some amounts @ Rs.1055/- has appeared to be deposited during 4.12.2014, 6.1.2015, and 21.8.2006. The genuineness of these deposits whether has been made by the said Sri Niranjan Behera or anybody else in ORHDC account is without any proof. Hence, he may be called upon to ORHDC head office to reconcile his payments made through his employer vide salary deduction and explain as to why he has claimed to have deposited cash in Andhra Bank, Rayagada. All his repayment has been made by DDO of OFDC, Bhanjangar through cheque of Indian Overseas Bank covering all the borrowers including the complainant. The deduction although was to be initiated from 1.9.2000 the DDO/Loanee started repaying his EMIs from February 2001 after a period of 5 months. Thereby the compounding interest is added to his loan account raising his principal dues. Similarly during the course of his repayment he has not paid from December 2004 up to October 2007 for 35 months due to which the principal outstanding as on 31.3.2005 remain at Rs.30,706/- rose to Rs.39,556/- on 31.3.2007 and at the end of 31.3.2009 rose to Rs.46,184/-. He started again repaying loan installment from 30.4.2009 up to 6.10.2010 reducing his principal balance from Rs.46,184/- to Rs.36,544/-. Assuming 27 installments paid does not close the loan account since he was irregular for many installments. Again his non-payment from 31.3.2011 till 30.1.2016 the principal rose to Rs.67,509/- and even after his repayment of Rs.62,034/- on 30.1.2016 the principal balance of Rs.5,475/- remains outstanding along with interest till date. Hence the O.P.No.1 prayed to direct the complainant to attend the head office of ORHDC ltd. Bhubaneswar to reconcile/settle his loan account.
4. Upon notice the O.P.No.2 filed version. It is an admitted fact that the complainant was working as field Assistant in OFDC ltd. Bhanjanagar (C) Division during the period from14.12.1990 to 15.10.2004 and 27.8.2007 to 30.6.2013. The complainant after availing a housing loan from M/S ORHDC Ltd. Bhubaneswar had given them an undertaking to the effect that EMI as would be fixed will be recovered from the salary of complainant and the same will be deposited in favour of ORHDC Ltd. Bhubaneswar. Subsequently ORHDC ltd. Bhubaneswar had intimated this office to deduct and deposit @ Rs.1055/- per month from the salary of complainant for six years. We have accordingly affected the recovery from his salary of January 2001 onwards and deposited in favour of ORHDC ltd. In response to our above letter ORHDC ltd. Bhubaneswar intimated the outstanding loan position as on 31.5.2008. Finally the complainant has requested this office to stop recovery of the loan installment vide his application dated 28.9.2010, wherein they have stopped the recovery with the intimation that the complainant will submit the liquidation certificate against the loan from ORHDC ltd vide this office letter No. 40992 dated 7.12.2010. Hence the O.P.No.2 prayed that no excess amount has been recovered in this office from the salary of complainant, which may please be considered and the case may be disposed off as per the provision of law.
5. On the date of final hearing we have heard the matter at length from the learned counsel for the complainant and for O.P.No.1. We have also heard the authorized persons of O.P.No.2 and 3 and have also gone through the complaint and written arguments filed by the parties. We have also perused the materials placed on the case record.
On perusal of the case record and after hearing the parties, it reveals that there is no dispute that the present complainant is a loanee under O.P.No.1, as is evident from the letter bearing No.ORHDC/CS/908/2000 dated 20.9.2000 placed as Annexure-A in the case record. The present complainant availed housing loan of Rs.50,000/- from O.P.No.1 with a condition to repay the same within a term of 6 years through deduction of Equated Monthly Installments (EMIs) of Rs.1055/- each by his employer. Accordingly, a total of 72 EMIs were fixed and deduction started with effect from January 2001 from the salary of the complainant. It is also beyond dispute that the complainant relieved from Corporation service on 30.6.2013 afternoon vide office order No.43 dated 27.2.2013 of O.P.No.2 on attaining the age of 58 years on superannuation. The complainant after his retirement from service redressed his grievance before O.P.No.1 on 21.5.2013 for settlement of his loan account bearing No.BH 5480 of 2000-01. However, the O.P.No.1 did not settle the loan account of the present complaint, hence this consumer dispute.
6. During the course of hearing of the consumer dispute, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that during the employment of the complainant he was availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- from O.P.No.1 which was to be deducted @ Rs.1055/- per month from the salary bill and deposited with O.P.No.1 through O.P.No.2 &3. Accordingly, the monthly deduction of Rs.1055/- was to be made in 72 EMIs in 6 years. However, In spite of the conditions as agreed to, the O.P.No.2 & 3 deducted 69 and 34 installments respectively totaling to 103 installments i.e. 31 more installments over and above the actual installments and thereby deducted Rs.32,705/- in excess from the salary of the complainant. He also contended that it is settled law that bank can’t realize excess amount in the name of repayment of loan amount as decided by National Commission in the case of Kotak Mohindra Bank Ltd Vs. Partha Pratim Chartterjee reported in 2013(1) CPR 129 (NC). Hence, prayed before this Forum to refund the excess amount of Rs.32,705/- with interest @ 13.5% per month alongwith compensation and cost.
7. Per contra, the O.P.No.1 in his agreement contended that the complainant has not raised the point of excess deduction of Rs.32,705/- at any time before filing of the present case and it is not true and it is against the loan agreement. He vehemently objected to the statement of account filed by the learned counsel for the complainant on 16.2.2016. He specifically denied to have deducted excess amount of Rs.96,739/- hence not liable to return. He has also contended that the deposit shown vide statement of current account of ORHDC Ltd at Andhra Bank at Rayagada Branch some amount of Rs.1055/- has appeared to have deposited during 4.12.2014, 6.1.2005 and 21.8.2006 and the genuineness of those deposits whether was made by the present complainant or anybody else in ORHDC Ltd account is without proof. Hence, he may be called upon to OHRDC Ltd head office to reconcile his payments made through salary deduction and explain as to why he has claimed to have deposited cash in Andhra Bank, Rayagada. All his repayments have been made by DDO, OFDC, Bhanjangar through cheque of Indian Overseas Bank covering all the borrowers including the present complainant. He also contended that deduction although was to be initiated from 1.9.2000 but the DDO/loanee started repayment of his EMIs from February 2001 after a period of 5 months so compounding interest is to be added to his loan account raising his principal dues. Similarly, during the course of his repayment, he has not paid from December 2004 up to October 2007 for 35 months due to which the principal outstanding as on 31.3.2005 remained at Rs.30,706/- rose to Rs.39,556/- on 31.3.2007 and at the end of 31.3.2009 rose to Rs.46,184/-. He started again repayment of loan installment on 30.4.2009 and up to 6.10.2010 reducing his principal balance from Rs.46,184/- to Rs.36,544/-. Even assuming that he has paid 27 installments but it does not close the loan account since he was defaulter of many installments. He also stated that again his non-payment from 31.3.2011 till 30.1.2016, the principal rose to Rs.67,509/- and even after his repayment of Rs.62,034/- on 30.1.2016 the principal balance of Rs.5475/- remains as outstanding along with interest till today. He also drew our attention towards the statement of account which is placed in the case record and in view of his argument prayed before this Forum to direct the complainant to attend the head office of ORHDC Ltd, Bhubaneswar to settle his account.
8. Similarly, the authorized person of O.P.No.2 in his argument stated that the complainant was working as Field Assistant in OFDC Ltd, Bhanjangar Division during the period 14.12.1990 to 15.10.2004 and 27.8.2007 to 30.6.2013 respectively. During his employment at Bhanjangar Division as per the instructions of O.P.No.1 this O.P. has deducted 69 EMIs @ Rs.1055/- from the salary of the complainant and it was deposited with O.P.No.1. The details of the deduction and deposit by O.P.No.2 are placed as Annexure A to E series of documents submitted by the O.P.No.2. Finally, the complainant requested to this O.P. to stop recovery of the loan installment vide his application dated 28.9.2010 wherein we stopped the recovery with the intimation to the complainant to submit liquidation certificate against the loan from ORHDC Ltd vide this office Letter No.4092 dated 7.12.2010. Hence, stated before this Forum that no excess amount has been recovered by this office from the salary of the complainant, therefore, prayed to consider the fact and dispose of the matter as per provisions of law.
9. Likewise, the O.P.N o.3 in his argument contended that as intimated by the O.P.No.2 i.e. Divisional Manager, OFDC Ltd, Bhanjangar Division vide his letter No.4623 dated 31.10.2004 for recovery of loan of ORHDC Ltd in 27 installment @ Rs.1055/- per month and to deposit said amount with the ORHDC authority against the loan Account No.5480 of the complainant. Accordingly, this O.P. has recovered the outstanding amount against ORHDC loan staring from his date of joining till his relief from this division i.e. from 22.10.2004 to 31.7.2007 and has deposited 34 installments in the aforesaid account @ Rs.1055/- per month. A total of Rs.35,870/- has already been deposited in the said loan account in a regular manner. The said amount has been reflected in his LPC sent to Divisional Manager, Bhanjangar Division vide this office letter No.2958 on 29.8.2007 as the complainant did not submit the clearance certificate from ORHDC authority till issue of his LPC from this Division and in view of the above submission, the O.P.No.3 prayed to disposed of the case. He in support of his submissions he has also submitted 34 documents on 15.1.2014 which are placed in the case record.
10. We have heard the above pleadings of the respective parties and verified the documents relied on by O.Ps concerned. The complainant has received a loan amount of Rs.50,000/- from the O.P. NO.1. From the above pleadings and perusal of documents it is found that the O.P.No.2 has deducted 69 EMIs @ Rs.1055/- per month from the salary of the complainant which comes to a total amount of Rs.72,795/- and the O.P.No.3 has deducted 34 installments from the salary of the complainant which comes to Rs.35,870/- as total amount. The O.P.No.2 & 3 jointly deducted a total of 103 installments @ Rs.1055/- each EMIs which amounts to Rs.1,08,665/- as total. As per the installments of housing loan letter issued by the O.P.No.1 vide letter No.ORHDC/CS/908/2000 dated 20.9.2000, the loan was to be recovered by the O.P.No.2 in 6 years @ Rs.1055/- EMIs which comes to 72 EMIs in total. However, as per materials on record, the O.P.No.2 has deducted 69 EMIs and the O.P.No.3 has deducted 34 EMIs by deducting sum total of 103 EMIs by both O.Ps. Hence, the O.Ps have deducted excess of 31 EMIs @ Rs.1055/- each from the salary of the complainant which comes to a total amount of Rs.32,705/-. Therefore, it is clear that the O.P.No.2 & 3 have jointly deducted the aforesaid amount of Rs.32,705/- and has deposited in the loan account of the complainant bearing No.5480 with O.P.No.1 i.e. ORHDC Ltd. Bhubaneswar.
11. In view of the above discussion, we find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the O.P.No.1 that there is still Rs.5,475/- remained as outstanding principal due in the loan account of the complainant along with interest. In our considered view the statement of account placed before us is erroneous and not prepared as per the deductions made and deposited by the O.P.No.2 & 3, as during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.1 failed to explain the statement of account to the bench, hence we are not convinced that there is still principal overdue of Rs.5,475/- along with outstanding interest due against the loan account of the complainant. After going through the materials on record and as per the facts of the case, the O.P.No.1 has received 31 excess EMIs @ Rs.1055/- per month as deducted and deposited by the O.P.No.2 & 3 with O.P.No.1. Hence, the O.P.No.1 is liable to refund the money of 31 EMIs @ Rs.1055/- each i.e. Rs.32,705/- to the complainant. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, in our view, though O.P.No.2 & 3 has deducted excess amount from the salary of the complainant but we are unable to hold them liable to refund the same since they have deposited the said amount in the loan account of complainant with O.P.No.1 as per the terms and conditions of the loan letter and it was also not intentional as because the complainant has never pointed out the matter before either O.P.No.2 or 3 except on 28.9.2010 before O.P.No.2 to stop recovery of loan installment. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.NO.2&3 hence they are exonerated from the liability. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case and taking into account the faulty accounting system of the O.P.No.1, in our considered view the O.P.No.1 is deficient in service due to non-settlement of loan account of the complainant even after his grievance on 21.5.2013 through writing. Hence, the case is allowed against O.P.No.1 and dismissed against O.P.No.2 & 3.
12. In the result, the O.P.No.1 is directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.32,705/- (Rupees thirty two thousand seven hundred five) only to the complainant along with interest @ 6% per annum. We also direct the O.P.No.1 to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation. The above amount shall be paid by O.P.No.1 to the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the same U/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of complainant against O.P.No.2 and 3 is dismissed since they are exonerated from their liability in view of the above discussion. The consumer complaint of the complainant is disposed off accordingly.
13. The order is pronounced on this day of 10th June 2016 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copies of the order to parties free of cost.
