This is an application U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act filed by the petitioner Dipali Chakraborty praying for a direction on the oP Bank , UBI Mahesh branch to rectify the pension account of the petitioner and deposite a sum of
Rs.1075/- which was whimsically deducted from her account on 30.9.2013 and also to issue no due certificate and pay Rs.2000/- as litigation cost and Rs.20,000/- as compensation.
The case of the petitioner is that she is a senior citizen and pension holder of the OP Bank with S.B. A/c no. 0290210202452 and applied for a personal loan which was sanctioned being Rs.90000/- by the OP Bank @ 13% interest per annum on condition to repay the same by 48 equal monthly instalments of Rs.2414/- each per month and the repayment of EMI would start in March 2009 and be completed in February 2013 with loan account no. 0292300055471 . The oP Bank suddenly on 30.9.2013 collected Rs.1075/- from the account of the petitioner, although the Op collected the Emi as per loan agreement and there was always sufficient clear balance in the pension account . The OP verbally assured the petitioner that they would set the matter alright but later pay no heed . The Op failed and neglected to do their job and finding no other alternative the petitioner filed this case.
The OP Bank contested the case by filing a WV wherein they denied the allegations stating that the case is not maintainable as the petitioner has no cause
of action. They further submitted that the petitioner paid 46 instalments out of 48 and the loan amount is not liquidated and also said that due to default in time the OP bank deducted valid and legal interest on 30.9.2013 amounting to Rs.1075/- . The petitioner is also not entitled to any compensation and the be dismissed.
On the above cases of the parties the following issues are framed :
Whether the case is maintainable in its present form ?
Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration.
In support of her case the petitioner filed affidavit in chief and also filed documents . This forum heard the learned counsels for the petitioner as well as the Op Bank. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client being a senior citizen and a pensioner took the personal loan from the oP Bank and heris
EMI amount used to be deducted from his pension account wherein there was always deposit of sufficient amount and there was no question of deducting any interest for delay in payment in the loan account by the petitioner and if there is anything wrong then the same is only for the arbitrary action of the Bank and any defect in machine would be corrected by the Bank only and the petitioner has no hand to rectify the defect in the machines of the Bank and Bank cannot illegally and arbitrarily deduct any amount from the account of the account holder as there is money deposited with the Bank. Here the Bank deducted a sum of Rs.1075/- from the account of the petitioner on 30.9.2013 which was an arbitrary and whimsical act on the part of the OP/Bank with no fault on the part of the petitioner and so the petitioner prayed for refund of the sum of Rs.1075/- from the op.
Ld. Counsel for the OP/Bank submitted the statement of account of the petitioner wherefrom it is noticed that all the time since 2009 to 2013 the petitioner had more than Rs.2414/- in her account and instead of timely deduction of the EMI amount the Bank cannot charge penal interest on the petitioner and such act of the part of the bank amounted to deficiency in service
on the part of the Bank. Learned counsel for the oP also submitted that it was due to the machine which was fed with relevant data and there was no fault on the part of the Bank officials but such submission is not accepted by the Forum as it was the duty of the officials of the Bank to bring the matter to the knowledge of the superior authority and rectify the defects n machine so that the machine could deduct EMIs in all cases in time and never claim interest at a later stage which would be treated as machine made fault for which the petitioner cannot be held liable.
In view of above discussions and findings this forum finds that the petitioner has succeeded to prove her case that she is entitled to get refund of her main relief i.e. Rs.1075/- from the OP Bank which was whimsically deducted from his account but she being an account holder and having service from the Bank if possible every day cannot claim any compensation as during the above period she received service from the Bank and thus her prayer for compensation is denied by this Forum as well as no litigation cost is awarded to her as she failed to produce any document before this Forum that she requested the Bank by writing a letter to refund her amount.
In view of above discussions and findings the claim case succeeds.
Court fees paid is correct.
Hence ordered
That the C.Case no. 164 of 2014 be and the same is allowed on contest but no order is passed as to cost considering the special circumstances of the case. The petitioner is entitled to refund of her deducted sum being Rs.1075/- from the oP Bank who is directed to deposit Rs.1075/- in S.B. Account of the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order, failing the amount would carry inte3rest @ 9% per annum and the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution.
The case is disposed of accordingly.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
