Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/5/2018

G.Bharathi Devi, W/o B.Yellappa, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Zonal Manager, State Bank of India, - Opp.Party(s)

U.Lakshmanachari

04 Jan 2019

ORDER

         

 

                                                                                                Filing Date: 02-02-2018                                                                                                               Order Date: 04-01-2019

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

                                                         Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

 FRIDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

 

C.C.No.05/2018

Between

Gunji Bharathi Devi, W/o. B. Yellappa,

Hindu, aged about 53 years, Employee,

Residing at D.No. 1-5-568, Balaji Colony,

Tirupati, Chittoor District.                                                            … Complainant

 

And

 

1. The Zonal Manager,

      State Bank of India,

      Having office at Zonal office,

      SBI, Upstairs to Hero Honda Show Room,

      Renigunta Road, Tirupati,

      Chittoor District.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

      State Bank of India,

      Mahati Road, Tirupati,

      Chittoor District.                                                                    … Opposite parties

 

        This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 06.12.2018 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri. U. Lakshmanachari, & U.Rajasekhar, counsel for the complainant, and Sri. K. Prem Kumar Karanam, counsel for the opposite parties having stood over till this day and for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite parties to lift the hold forthwith so as to enable the complainant to operate her savings bank account and to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the complainant towards the financial loss and mental agony suffered by her and to pay costs of the complaint.  

        2. The brief facts of the case are:  the complainant is having savings bank account bearing No. 10625989352 in 2^nd opposite party’s bank and the opposite party No.1 is the zonal office of the 2^nd opposite party and her salary has been credited to the said account and she is working as teacher in Tirupati Municipal Corporation School. The complainant further submits that she applied personal loan in 2^nd opposite party’s bank for Rs.10,00,000/- for her family necessities and for education of her sons. After verifying the documents submitted by her, the 2^nd opposite party sanctioned loan in the month of June 2017 in Loan A/c No. 0036931144574 and the EMI was fixed for Rs. 27,000/- per month and she had withdrawn loan amount and the EMI was deducted from her savings bank account for which her salary was credited and automatically the EMI was deducted by auto sweep method to her loan account on the stipulated date.

        The complainant further submits that, in the month of August her salary was credited to her account and the EMI was also deducted on 01.08.2017 itself. Later the complainant tried to withdraw her balance salary from the ATM, but it declined to dispense the amount. Hence she immediately approached 2^nd opposite party and she came to know that her account was with held by 2nd opposite party bank without any valid reasons and prior notice to her. After several requests the 2^nd opposite party enquired about her other debts with third parties though it was not of their concern and obtained signatures on some papers by stating that it is only undertaking obtained in routine nature to lift the hold on her salary account.  Even then they did not lift the hold to enable her to withdraw her salary from her account. The complainant further submits that though she obtained loans from other financial institutions, she used to clear them as per the EMIs and they are in no way  hindering the repayment schedule of the 2^nd opposite party as she maintained sufficient balance in her savings bank account even before it is put on hold. There is no single complaint by any other financial institutions and they are in no way connected to the salary account as well as the loan account held with the 2^nd opposite party. Even after several requests made by the complainant, the opposite party declined to lift the hold and caused much inconvenience to the complainant as she is unable to withdraw her salary for day to day needs which leads her to borrow loans at higher rate of interest which pushed her into financial distress. And also to clear the debts of the other financial institutions she could not withdraw the amount available in her account for that also, she was forced to borrow the amounts at higher rate of interest. Hence she caused legal notice on 16.10.2017, but after receipt of the said notice the opposite parties failed to reply the same. Hence she got issued a reminder notice on 14.12.2017. Meanwhile the 2^nd opposite party gave a reply to the first legal notice with all false and frivolous contentions. The opposite party held the amount of the complainant without any valid and reasonable grounds and the same amounts to deficiency in service on part of opposite parties and to degraded her in society as to. Hence she filed the present complaint.

         3. Opposite party No.2 filed the written version by denying the allegations made by the complainant and further submits that the complainant approached 2^nd opposite party with a request to grant personal loan for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of express credit loan and after verification of records submitted by her for processing the said loan, the bank authorities found that certain amounts have been deducted from her salary account towards EMI’s for the loans availed by the complainant herein from ICICI bank, Tirupati. As per RBI guidelines the EMI’s of loan of an employee shall not be more than 50% of the salary of the borrower. Hence after verification of the records submitted by the complainant the opposite party found that only after clearing entire loans availed by the complainant from other banks, she will be entitled to avail the loan from the opposite party No.2 and same was informed to the complainant and the complainant accepted for the same and gave an undertaking to close the existing loans with ICICI bank and Bajaj Finance Services after getting loan from the 2nd opposite party bank and accordingly she gave a letter dt: 01.06.2017. Hence the 2^nd opposite party after considering the request made by the complainant sanctioned the loan of Rs.10,00,000/-  on 08.06.2017 and same was credited into her SB account. After crediting the said amount the complainant had withdrawn the said amounts on different dates, but she did not submit her loan closure statements from the ICICI bank, Tirupati and Bajaj Finance Services Ltd., as promised while availing the loan from the 2nd opposite party.

         4.  The 2^nd opposite party further submits that, even after completion of the months she has not submitted no dues or loan clearance certificates from the concerned banks and financial institutions as per the undertaking given by her while availing the said loan. Hence the 2^nd opposite party has no other option except to put on hold the account of the complainant till she clears dues to other financial institutions to comply the terms and conditions of RBI guidelines with regard to personal loan sanctioned to salary salaried peoples. Hence the 2^nd opposite party submits that the complainant has not fulfilled her promise while availing the loan and the 2^nd opposite party forced to put on hold the account of the complainant after due intimation of holding account for non-complying the undertaking given by complainant. Hence the allegation made by the complainant, that they have put on hold the account of the complainant without intimation and information and without any valid reason are all false and created to file the frivolous complaint and also the allegations made by the complainant that she has borrowed amounts from third parties for paying dues to other financial institutions due to hold on her account by the 2^nd opposite party are created by the complainant in order to get wrongful gain. Hence as the 2^nd opposite party is the public sector bank and they are giving utmost good services to its customers and the complainant who is having savings bank account and borrower of the opposite party has created said allegations to get wrongful gain. Hence there is no deficiency in service on part of them and prayed this forum to dismiss the complaint against them.

         5.   The complainant filed her evidence on affidavit and Ex: A1 to A4 were got marked. On behalf of the opposite parties one K. Suresh Babu, Branch Manager of 2^nd opposite party filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex:B1 to B10 were marked. Both parties filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

       6. Now the point for consideration is:-

           Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite party? If so, to what extent, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for ?

                   7.Point:-  There is no dispute regarding the SB account of the complainant in the 2^nd opposite party’s bank and also there is no dispute regarding the loan sanctioned by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant. The main case of the complainant is she availed loan from the 2^nd opposite party for Rs.10,00,000/- in the month of June 2017 which is to be repaid in 48 equated monthly installments of Rs.27,000/- per month and accordingly the loan was credited into SB account of the complainant and she withdrawn the same on different dates as per her requirements and her salary being credited regularly into her account and the EMI of the said loan of Rs.27,000/- has been debited from her account through auto sweep method and as usual the EMI was debited on 01.08.2017 and later when the complainant tried to withdraw her balance salary after deducting the EMI, the ATM declined to dispense the amount and immediately she approached the 2^nd opposite party and learnt that her account was put on hold without any valid reason and issuing any kind of information or any prior notice to the complainant and also the complainant stated that, the opposite party has enquired the complainant about other debts with other banks and financial institutions though it was not their concern and her disclosure on part of the other debts they have obtained signatures  in some papers stating that it is routine undertaking to lift the hold but even then they did not lift the hold on her account to enable her to withdraw her salary from her account and though she obtained loans from other financial institutions, she used to clear them as per the EMI’s and there is no way to hinder the repayment schedule of the 2^nd opposite party as such she used to maintain sufficient balance in her account before it is put on hold as there is no even single complaint by any financial institutions and they are in no way connected to the salary account as well as the loan account hold by the opposite party and on her several requests the 2^nd opposite party declined to lift the hold and caused much inconvenience to the complainant as she is unable  to withdraw the amount from her salary account which caused much inconvenience to her as she had borrowed amounts from the borrowers at high rate of interest and it amounts to deficiency in service.

                    8.The counsel for the opposite party stated that the complainant approached the 2^nd  opposite party bank and applied personal loan for Rs.10,00,000/- to clear three different loans availed by her form ICICI bank, Tirupati and also for the education of her children  after verification of the records submitted by her for processing of the loan they found that certain amounts has been deducted from her salary account towards the EMI’s for the loans availed by her from the ICICI bank, Tirupati and further submitted that as per RBI guidelines the EMI’s of loan of an employee shall not be more than 50% of the salary of the borrower and the opposite party No.2 brought to the notice of the complainant that she will be entitled for the loan, only after clearing the existing loans and the complainant duly accepted for the same and undertake to close the existing loans with the ICICI bank and Bajaj Finance Services from the loan amount to be sanctioned to her by way of letter dt: 01.06.2017 under Ex:B3. Hence the opposite parties sanctioned loan on 08.06.2017 for Rs.10,00,000/- and the amount was credited to her SB account. But the complainant had withdrawn the amount on different dates but she has not submitted any loan closure statements from the ICICI bank and Bajaj Finance Services as per her promise and undertaken given by her while availing said loan. Hence after several requests made by them, the complainant after withdrawn of the entire loan amount also, she has not submitted no dues or loan clearance certificates from concern banks and financial institutions and undertaken given by her availing the said loans and in order to prove the said contention the opposite party got marked Ex:B10 letter issued to the complainant by the 2^nd opposite party calling upon the complainant to submit the closure letters of the existing loans which was taken by the complainant prior to the loan sanctioned by opposite party dt:02.08.2017. But even after receipt of the said letter the complainant failed to submit the pre-closure letter from the other banks and financial institutions and also argued that there are latches on part of the complainant and unnecessarily she filed the complaint in order to get wrong full gain.

                     9. After perusing the record filed by both the parties that there is no dispute regarding the loan taken by the complainant from opposite party No.2 and same was admitted by them. The complainant filed the complaint with the following reliefs:-

                           1) Directing the opposite parties to hold forthwith so as enable the complainant to operate her SB account.

                                 The counsel for the opposite parties filed the memo on 04.05.2018 stating that the 2nd opposite party lifted the hold on the SB account of the complainant with effect from 04.05.18 and same was admitted by the complainant on 09.05.2018 before the bench and same was recorded.  Hence from 04.05.2018 she has been operating her account without any hindrance, hence we are of the view that  the relief was became       in fructuous as it was already served.

                          2) Directing the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant towards the financial loss, mental agony and the sufferings met by the complainant due to their act.

                              The complainant while applying the loan in opposite party No.2’s bank,  gave under taking letter under ExB3 dt:01.06.2017. In the said letter she clearly mentioned that she will submit the closure letter of the other loans which were pending in her name after receiving partial part of the loan amount of opposite party No.2. But even after receiving the loan she has not submitted the closure letter of other loans and also the opposite party No.2 stated that she failed to submit even after several reminders made by them and finally they issued letter under Ex.B.10 dt:02.08.2017 to submit the clearance letters of other loans. Even after receipt of the said letter she failed to submit the letter of clearance of other loans. The complainant on one hand states that the opposite parties took her signatures in the papers in order to lift the hold on her account. After 01.08.2017 when she came to knowledge about putting hold on her account by opposite party No.2, but in the said letter the date was mentioned as 01.06.2017 under Ex.B3 which is prior to sanctioning of the loan. It clearly shows that the complainant suppressed real facts before this forum. Hence her contention cannot be considered.

                     Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant herself failed to prove that, there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties towards her. Hence under the above circumstances, the question of granting compensation does not arise and the complainant is here by dismissing with no costs.

        In the result, complaint is dismissed. No Costs.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 04^th day of January, 2019.

             Sd/-                                                                                                         Sd/-                                                                               

    Lady Member                                                                                                 President (FAC)

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Gunji Bharathi Devi (Chief affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: K. Suresh Babu (Chief affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	True copy of Statement of Account from 01.05.2017 to 15.12.2017 pertaining to SB A/c. No.10625989352. Dt: 15.12.2017.
	Office copy of Legal Notice filed by the Complainant. Dt: 16.10.2017.
	Office copy of Reminder with Postal Receipt filed by the Complainant. Dt: 14.12.2017.
	Reply Notice issued by 2nd opposite party filed by the complainant. Dt: 05.12.2017.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Attested true copy of the Annexure-XP-8 submitted by the complainant herein to the opposite party No.2. Dt: 30.05.2017.
	Attested true copy of the Salary Certificate of the complainant submitted to the opposite party No.2. Dt: 17.05.2017.
	Attested true copy of the letter addressed to the second opposite party by the complainant while availing personal loan filed by the opposite party No.2. Dt: 01.06.2017.
	Attested true copy of the Xpress Credit Application submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties for personal loan filed by the opposite party No.2. dt: 07.06.2017.
	Attested true copy of the ARRANGEMENT LETTER addressed to the complainant herein by the 2nd opposite party filed by the opposite party No.2. Dt: 07.06.2017.
	Attested true copy of the Personal Loan  Agreement executed in favour of the opposite party bank by the complainant for her personal loan filed by the opposite party No.2. Dt: 07.06.2017.
	Attested true copy of the irrevocable standing instructions given by the borrower (Complainant) to the bank (opposite parties) filed by the opposite party No.2. Dt: 30.05.2017.
	Attested true copy of the letter addressed to the opposite party by the employer of the complainant authoring to deduct the EMI from her salary to credit the same to her loan account with the opposite party filed by the opposite party No.2. Dt: 20.05.2017.
	Attested true copy of the letter addressed to the employer of the complainant authoring to deduct the EMI from her salary to credit the same to her loan account with the opposite party filed by the opposite party No.2.
	Attested true copy of the letter addressed to the complainant herein by the opposite party for non closure of the existing loans with other financial institutions filed by the opposite party No 2. Dt: 02.08.2017.

 

 

                                                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                                   President (FAC)

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant, 

                  2) The Opposite parties 1and 2.