Karnataka

Kolar

CC/17/2022

Sri.Iliyas Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Senior Manager, Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

19 Jul 2022

ORDER

                          Date of Filing: 19.04.2022

Date of Disposal:19.07.2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

 

Dated: 19^TH DAY OF JULY 2022

PRESENT

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI,B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 17 OF 2022

Sri. Iliyas Khan,

S/o. Musthafa Khan,

Aged About 62 years,

Retired Senior Manager,

Karnataka Gramina Bank,

R/o. Kuvempu Nagar, Kolar.                            ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. K.A. Khan, Advocate)

- V/s –

1) The Senior Manager,

Canara Bank, Doom Light Circle,

Kolar Town.

(Exparte) 

 

2) The Chief Manager,

Canara Bank,

Doom Light Circle,

Kolar Town.

(Exparte)                                                               …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

ORDER

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

01.   That the complainant has filed this Consumer Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act against the Ops,  alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos.1 and 2 Bank and seeking direction to Ops Bank to refund a sum of Rs1,47,499/- along with interest at the rate of 8% pa and further order to refund excessive debits done by the OPs Bank from the pension account of the complainant till date and damages to an extent of Rs.2,50,000/- towards inconvenience and hardship caused to the complainant.

02.   The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, the complainant was the employee of the Opposite party bank and during his service he had obtained the housing loan of Rs.7,57,000/- on 27-08-2004 with loan account No.0539619003411.  Further  states that, in order to repay  the above said loan amount complainant was agreed to pay the same through monthly EMI of Rs.7,890/- per month and accepted to clear the entire housing loan within 184 EMI’s fixed by the Ops Bank i.e., which has to be cleared on  29.12.2016.  The specific allegation of the complainant is that, before his retirement complainant was paid the entire EMI’s as per the deduction in his salary to the Ops bank as agreed within in the time, whereas the Ops bank have deducted the excess amount from his account without any intimation to the complainant and the complainant though paid the EMI’s up to 30.06.2017.  It is alleged further that, the OPs bank still demands and showing the balance statement of Rs.2,63,431/- as an excess amount and arbitrarily demanding the same. Thereafter the complainant approached the OPs bank and obtained the statement of account and it reveals that, the OPs bank have charged the excess interest of Rs.2,24,830/- and they have debited the balance amount from the complainant’s account No. 0539101010418 without giving notice to him. Hence the complainant questioned the recovery of excess amount paid towards interest vide letters dated: 17.08.2017, 17.12.2018 and on 09.12.2019, but the Ops did not respond to the complainant. Hence this complaint.

03.   On issuance of notice, OP Nos.1 and 2 were remained absent and thereon both the Ops were placed exparte.

04.   In order to prove the case of the complainant he has filed his affidavit evidence along with supporting documents.

05.   Heard the arguments of the complainant.

06.   On perusal of the pleadings of the complainant and the documents placed on record, the following points will do arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Ops?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as sought in the complaint?

 

3. What order?

 

07.    Our findings on the above points are:-

POINT (1):-      In the Affirmative

POINT (2):-      In the Affirmative

POINT (3):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

08.   POINTS (1) & (2):-   These points are taken up together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts.

09.     In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and five documents. On perusal of the affidavit evidence it reveals that, the complainant has retreated all the facts stated in the complaint petition.  However it is made clear that earlier in the complaint petition excess amount was debited from the account of the complainant is shown as Rs.2,24,830/- instead of Rs.1,47,499/- and claiming  refund of the above said amount along with interest.  Also the complainant is claiming excessive deduction amount of Rs.2,395/- from the date of claiming the complaint.  In order to substantiate the case of the complainant and the complainant has filed the statement of account and it clearly discloses that, the amount excessively was debited from the account of the complainant as alleged in the complaint.

10.   It is the specific case of the complainant that, the complainant was working as a Manager in the Opposite party Bank and during his service i.e., on 27.08.2004 complainant had obtained the Housing Loan of Rs.7,57,000/- and agreeing to repay the loan amount within 184 EMI’s and Rs.7,890/- is fixed per EMI.  That the complainant deposed that, though he had paid all the EMI’s regularly through his salary deduction and cleared the loan account, however the OPs bank have collected excessive interest from the complainant and the same is debited from his account to an extent of 06 EMI’s without the knowledge and consent of the complainant. In order to support the case, the complainant has filed the letter dated: 09.12.2019, 16.02.2018, 17.08.2017 and on perusal of these letters addressed by the complainant, the OPs bank did not clarify anything to the complainant as a customer for excessive recovery of the amount in question.  Whereas it is the duty of the OPs bank being the financial institution it should be fair and transparent in its business dealings. Above all the complainant was also the employee of the OPs Bank for his own employee being the customer has got every right to know the reason, why the OPs bank have collected excessive interest on the housing loan though entire EMI’s were paid regularly by the complainant.  Further on perusal of the statement of account it also clearly discloses that, the complainant has duly paid the regular installments towards the housing loan. 

11.   It is worth to note that, despite issuance of notice the OP Nos.1 & 2 for the reasons best known to them they were failed to appear before this Commission to answer the claim of the complainant and thereon having no other option OP Nos.1 & 2 were placed exparte.  That the OPs bank being the public institution it is the duty cast on the Bank to honour the summons or notices issued by this Commission by appearing and answering the claim.  However the OP Nos.1 & 2 banks approached through their counsel belatedly and filed an application to set aside the exparte orders.  Whereas this Commission has no power to set aside the exparte order.  However the OPs Bank have every right to argue the case on the matter on the basis of the statement of accounts filed by the complainant, but the Ops did not whispered anything about the statement of account.  Under the circumstances on the basis of the available evidence on record, we have no other option, except to accept the evidence placed on record.  On the basis of the evidence, we reached to conclusion that, the non-disclosure of the excessive interest and the recovery of excessive amount without intimating to the complainant it leads to deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos.1 & 2 Bank.  The law mandates that, no one can be rich at the cost of other, as we seen from the records the OPs Bank recovered excessive amount from the account of the complainant who being earlier the Manager of the  Karnataka Gramina  Bank, and the OPs Bank is a parent Bank.  The above attitude of the OPs Bank recovering excessive amount and also recovering from the family pension account without the consent and knowledge of the complainant is deplorable one.  In the attendant circumstance of the case, we deem it just and proper to direct the OP Nos.1 & 2 Bank to refund the excessive amount recovered from the complainant’s account as deposed in the affidavit evidence to an extent of Rs.1,47,499 /- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the above said amount.  Further on perusal of the statement of accounts dated: 01.01.2017 to 04.02.2022 and it clearly reveals that, after closer of the loan installments the OPs Bank recovered Rs.2,395/- from the family pension account of the complainant without his consent and it clearly amounts to deficiency in service and it is also an unfair trade practice.  Hence the complainant is also entitled to the above said amounts deducted from his family pension account and Ops Bank are liable to pay the same along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.  Further we direct the Ops bank to close the housing loan account by returning all the pledged title deeds to the complainant.  It is worth to mention that, due to the deplorable act of the Ops Bank the complainant has suffered lot by wandering into pillar to post on account of deficiency in service of the OPs Bank and hence the complainant is also entitled for Rs.10,000/-towards the cost of the proceedings and it will meet the ends of justice.  Accordingly we answered Point Nos.(1) & (2) are in the Affirmative.     

POINT (3):-

12.   On the basis of the reasons assigned while answering Points Nos. (1) & (2) we proceed to pass the following:-

 

ORDER

01.   The complaint is allowed-in-part with cost.

02.   The OP Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally are liable to pay Rs.1,47,499/- to the complainant along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization of the amount. 

03.   Further the OP Nos.1 & 2 are also directed to pay the amount excessively recovered from the complainant’s family pension account to an extent of Rs.2,395/- per month subsequent to filing of the complaint till date along with interest @ 8% per annum and OP No.1 – Bank shall file a statement what is the total amount deducted from the family pension account of the complainant.

04.   Further OP Nos.1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

05.   Further we direct the Ops bank to close the housing loan account of the complainant and to return all the pledged title deeds to the complainant.

06.   Further OP Nos.1 & 2 are directed to comply the order of this Commission within 30 days from the date of the order.

07.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 19^th  DAY OF JULY 2022.

 

 

    LADY MEMBER                               PRESIDENT