C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/72
COMPLAINANT : Atindranath Dutta,
S/o Late Radhanath Dutta,
C/o Late Rathin Kar,
Patrabazar, 88, M.M. Ghosh Lane,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) The Special Officer,
The Krishnagar City Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
M.M. Ghosh Street, P.O. Krishnagar,
P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia
2) The Manager,
The Krishnagar City Co-Operative Bank Ltd.,
M.M. Ghosh Street, P.O. Krishnagar
P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 8th April, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he applied to the OP bank for a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- for house building purpose and accordingly, the OP sanctioned the said amount on 04.12.09. But actually Rs. 1,35,000/- was credited to his loan account and Rs. 10,000/- was deducted in suspense account for purchasing a LIC policy and Rs. 5,000/- was also deducted for purchasing share of the bank by the complainant though in the original agreement nothing was mentioned about this. The complainant regularly repaid the loan amount along with the interest up to 06.05.10. He repaid the entire loan amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- along with the statutory interest. In spite of that the OP bank demanded further amount. On the other hand, the complainant requested the OP to disburse the undisbursed amount to him, but to no effect. So there is a gross deficiency in service on the part of this OP bank. Therefore, having no other alternative this case is filed praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
Written version is filed on behalf of the OP No. 1 & 2, inter alia, stating that the complainant is a member, account holder and loanee under the Krishnagar City Co-operative Bank Ltd. He previously took a loan of Rs. 50,000/- and before the full repayment of the loan he again applied for further loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the OP bank and the OP bank sanctioned Rs. 1,50,000/- which was to be paid into 120 instalments and the rate of interest was fixed at 15% per annum. Out of the loan amount Rs. 1,35,000/- was paid to the complainant and as per instruction of the Reserve Bank of India as it was an unsecured loan, so Rs. 10,000/- was deducted for a LIC policy which would be kept by the bank as security till full payment of the loan amount. Another amount of Rs. 5,000/- was deducted for purchasing of share of the bank by the loanee as per the Co-operative Society rules, 1987. So no question of deducting the above said amount of Rs. 15,000/- intentionally by the bank does arise. The complainant made repayment of the loan amount along with the interest and up to 10.09.10 the due principal amount stands at Rs. 14,225/- + interest Rs. 568/- which is still to be paid by the complainant. So no question of deficiency in service on the bank does arise. Hence, the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs along with the annexed documents filed by the parties and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties it is available on record that admittedly this complainant applied for a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the OP bank which was also sanctioned in his favour. It is also admitted in this case that out of the said loan amount, Rs. 1,35,000/- was disbursed to the complainant and Rs. 10,000/- was deducted as LIC premium policy of the complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- for purchase of share of the bank by the complainant. From the documents filed by the OPs it is available that till June, 10 the complainant repaid principal amount of Rs. 1,35,775/- along with the interest of Rs. 525/-. The complainant’s specific allegation is that at the time of executing the loan nothing was mentioned in the loan agreement regarding LIC policy and purchase of share of the bank. On the other hand, it is the categorical assertion of the OPs that as per the guidelines of the RBI the complainant shall have to purchase one LIC Policy as it was unsecured loan. But to that extent no document or order of the RBI is filed by the OPs. At the time of argument ld. lawyer for the OPs frankly submits that till to-date no policy was purchased by the complainant nor any share was allotted to him. It is also admitted by him that the deducted amount of Rs. 15,000/- is lying in the suspense account of the bank in the name of the complainant. The copy of the written agreement is filed by the OP from which it is available that there is no whisper in that agreement regarding the purchase of LIC policy and the share of the bank by the complainant. The rate of interest was fixed at 15% per annum. So considering the documents filed by both the parties it is established that the OP bank without assigning any reason unilaterally deducted Rs. 10,000/- for LIC policy premium and Rs. 5,000/- as price of share, though no share was issued in favour of the complainant. On the other hand, he has charged interest on the above said amount which is available from the copy of the loan account statement filed by him. In no case the OPs are entitled to get any interest on the above undisbursed Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant. The due principal amount is Rs. 14,225/- out of the total loan amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. At the same time we find that Rs. 15,000/- out of the loan amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- is still undisbursed to the complainant, so the actual due principal amount of loan stands at nil. Rather the complainant paid excess amount of Rs. 775/- as principal to the OPs. We have already discussed that from the loan account statement, it available that the interest of Rs. 1,35,000/- is already paid by the complainant. So the OPs are not at all entitled to get any other further interest from the complainant.
Therefore, in view of the above discussions it is available on record that the complainant paid excess principal amount of Rs. 775/- which he is entitled to get back from the OPs. The complainant is also entitled to get compensation for deficiency in service caused by the OPs and the mental harassment caused to him also. We do further hold that as the complainant has become able to prove his case, so he is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/72 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OPs. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 775/- along with Rs. 3,000/- as compensation plus Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost, i.e., in total Rs. 5,775/- which the OP No. 1 & 2 are jointly or severally liable to pay the decretal amount to the complainant within a period of one month since this date of passing this judgment, in default, the decretal amount will carry interest @10% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
