DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No.99 of 2015
Date of filing: 13.4.2015 Date of disposal: 17.6.2016
Complainant: Sk. Ashif Ahammad, S/o. Sk. Musharaf Hossain, Village & Post Office: Nutanhat, Police Station: Mongalkote, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 147.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. UCO Bank, having its Branch Office at Nutanhat, PO: Nutanhat, PS: Mongalkote, District: Burdwan, PIN- 713 147, West Bengal, represented by its Branch Manager.
2. UCO Bank, having its Head Office at 10, B.T.M. Sarani (Brabourn Road), Kolkata, PIN – 700 001, represented by its Chairman.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Debdas Rudra.
Appeared for the Opposite Party (s): Ld. Advocate,Soham Som.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Ops.
The complainant applied before Bangla Swanirbhar Karmasansthan Prakalpa (Atmamaryada), a society for self-employment of unemployed youth, West Bengal, for BSKP loan of Rs. 5, 00,000=00 for running his shop of tea and milk powder. The complainant submitted the application form duly filled up before the BSKP (Atmamaryada) on 05.8.2008 along with all the necessary documents as per their requirements i.e. provisional certificate of registration of trade being trade registration No. 56, dated 30.7.2008, Madhyamik Admit Card, income certificate issued by Mongalkote Gram Panchayat, voter identity card, Employment Exchange card and report of project feasibility of tea (leaf) and milk (dry) purchased safe under category of BSKP (Atmamaryada). It was categorically stated in the said scheme that the total project cost was Rs. 5,00,000=00 and out of Rs. 5, 00,000=00, the Bank will disburse 70% of the total project cost i.e. Rs. 3,50,000=00, the Government will subsidize 20% of the total project cost i.e. Rs. 1,00,000=00 and the applicant’s own contribution will be 10% of the total project cost i.e. Rs. 50,000=00. As per the above-mentioned scheme the OP-1 approved the loan on 22.10.2009 and sanctioned the BSKP loan amount of Rs. 3, 50,000=00 in favour of the complainant on 22.4.2010. It has been categorically stated in the said sanction letter dated 22.4.2010 that the said SBKP loan account will be repayable after three months from the date of sanction of loan i.e. from the month of July 2010 with 11.75% interest of sixty equitable monthly installments @Rs. 7,750=00. The OP-1 took the original deed of the house of the complainant vide Deed No. I-3437 dated 31.12.2003 to keep in their custody as mortgage to disburse the said loan amount of Rs. 3, 50,000=00 in favour of the complainant though in the said scheme the mortgage of the original deed to disburse the BSKP loan is not necessary and there was no mention in the said scheme regarding keeping mortgage of the original deed for disbursement of the said loan amount. Moreover, it was categorically stated in the said Govt. scheme that the complainant would have to contribute 10% of the total project cost i.e. Rs. 50,000=00 for said BSKP loan but the OP-Bank told the complainant to contribute Rs. 65,000=00 from his account bearing No. 07400310000557 instead of Rs. 50,000=00. As per direction of the OP-1 the complainant contributed Rs. 65,000=00 before the OP-1 for fixed deposit for the time of 36 months against the said BSKP loan. The complainant requested the OP-1 Bank vide letter dated 28.8.2010 to issue receipt copy against the deposition of original deed bearing No. I-3437, dated 31.12.2003, as well as, money receipt of Rs. 65,000=00 for disbursement of the said BSKP loan. The OP-1 made an endorsement on the said letter thereby stating this is to certify that against BSKP loan for project Rs. 5, 00,000=00 we have received the following security for EMTD vide Deed No. I-3437, dated 31.12.2003 and a KY for Rs. 65,000=00 bearing No. 07400310000557. Thereafter the complainant has been paying the monthly installments of Rs. 7,750=00 as per sanction letter issued by the OP-Bank in regular manner. Ultimately the complainant paid 33 installments @Rs. 7,750=00, up to 29.4.2013 before the OP-1 Bank towards repayment of the said loan. After making payment of the 33 numbers of installments the fixed deposit certificate was matured on 14.5.2013 to Rs. 80,208=00 and so the complainant requested the OP-1 to deposit Rs. 80,208=00 with the said loan account towards repayment of the said loan and it has already been deposited in the said loan account of the complainant on 30.5.2013. Then the complainant wanted to know from the Branch Manager of the OP-1 Bank about the remaining outstanding dues to be paid by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant came to learn on 30.5.2013 that the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,59,900=00 were still remaining to be paid by the complainant. Then the complainant requested the OP-1 vide letter dated 22.8.2013 stating categorically that as per sanction letter the complainant would have to pay 60 EMIs @Rs. 7,750=00 i.e. total Rs. 4,65,000=00 and out of 60 EMIs the complainant already paid 33 EMIs @Rs. 7,750=00 i.e. total Rs. 2,55,750=00 also paid Rs. 80,208=00 on 30.5.2013. So the complainant has already paid Rs. 3, 35,958=00 (Rs. 2, 55,750 + Rs. 80,208) against the said BSKP loan. So the OP-Bank is entitled to get Rs. 1, 04,116=00 after calculation @11.75% interest. The OP-Bank received the letter on 22.8.2013 but no fruitful result came from the part of the Ops. The complainant also told the OP that though he is ready to pay the remaining balance amount as early as possible, but unless and until the Bank would give him the proper calculation sheet of statement record, the complainant would stop to pay EMI against the loan. Thereafter the complainant came to learn that as per Bank’s computer record the complainant would have to pay 36 EMI @Rs. 11,049=00 @14% per month towards the repayment of the said loan. The complainant requested again the OP-1 vide letter dated 23.9.2013 to look into the mater earnestly and to let him know the actual outstanding dues remaining against the said loan. But not a positive response came from the part of the OP-Bank. All on a sudden the complainant received a notice of Lok Adalat vide Case No. 255/2015 thereby stating that the OP-Bank has field the above-mentioned case before the Lok Adalat at District Judges’ Court, Burdwan and requested the complainant to appear in person before the Lok Adalat on 14th February, 2015 from 10 am onwards at Burdwan Court Compound for settlement of the petition of the case. The complainant went to the Lok Adalat on that date and time and the said matter was taken up for settlement before the Judge of Lok Adalat but no fruitful solution came from the part of the Bank though the complainant was agreed to settle the matter. Then the OP-1 called the complainant over phone for the settlement of the said loan before the financial year of the Bank i.e. 31st March 2015 and after long discussion with the Branch Manager as well as Zonal Manager it was finally settled that if the complainant paid Rs. 80,000=00 at a time on that day, then the said BSKP loan of the complainant would be finally closed and the Bank will issue clearance certificate against the said loan in favour of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant paid Rs. 80,000=00 by cash on 21.02.2015 in the loan account before the OP-Bank towards the final payment to close the said loan. The complainant then requested the OP-1 in writing vide letter dated 23.02.2015 to issue clearance certificate in favour of the complainant against the said BSKP loan. The OP-1 received the said letter on 23.02.2015 from the complainant but surprisingly the OP-1 sent a letter dated 28.02.2015 thereby stating that the compromise proposal for Rs. 80,000=00 deposited in loan account was not accepted by them as the said loan account being No. 07400610000298 (BSKP) is secured by mortgage against the property. The OP-1 also stated that it is the option of the complainant to take back the amount of Rs. 80,000=00 and this amount kept in no lien account is not bearing any interest. The complainant requested the OP-1 to look into the mater earnestly but till date no positive response came from the part of the OP-1. The complainant also obtained statement of account for the period 01.5.2010 to 04.3.2015 from where it would be evident that each and every month the penal interest has been imposed by the OP-Bank like C.C.Loan. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the service and conduct of the Ops the complainant finding no other alternative to get relief has been compelled to file this case before this Ld. Forum. The complainant prayed for getting clearance certificate from the OP-1 Bank against the said BSKP loan and to return back the original deed vide Deed No. I-3437 dated 31.12.2003 and Rs. 3, 00,000=00 as compensation towards mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs. 25,000=00 as litigation cost.
Notices were served upon the OP-1&2. Both the Ops have contested the case by filing conjoint written version. The Ops have denied all the allegations made against them by the complainant in his petition of complaint. The Ops have further stated that there is no such circular by which it is mentioned that the Bank will not be able to take any house building as well as any property as mortgage against any government sponsored loan which is more than Rs. 1,00,000=00. So the OP- Bank has taken the complainant’s house building mortgage against the complainant’s BSKP loan amounting to Rs. 5, 00,000=00. The Ops have further stated that in the sanction letter it is clearly mentioned that the complainant shall pay the interest to the Bank with the said loan @11.75% per annum with monthly interest subject to the revision from time to time as per the term of the BSKP loan agreement. The complainant would have to pay 60 EMIs @Rs. 7,750=00 i.e. total Rs. 4,65,000=00 but the complainant has not paid EMIs properly according to the loan agreement, so the penal interest has been charged against the against the said loan and the rate of interest has been increased from time to time according to the loan agreement of the complainant. The Ops again stated in their written version that the complainant has deposited Rs. 80,000=00 with a letter for compromise before the OP-1 and thereafter the OP-1 has forwarded the said compromise petition before the Zonal Office and the Zonal Office has scrutinized his proposal and takes the decision that it is not possible for the Ops to compromise the loan by taking Rs. 80,000=00 out of the total outstanding Rs. 90,406=00 up to 31.12.2013 and for that reason the Zonal Office has rejected the compromise proposal and gave the instruction to return the compromise amount which was deposited by the complainant before the OP-1 Bank and also instructed the OP-1 to claim the total outstanding dues from the complainant and the OP-1 has complied the same order. The Ops further stated that the complainant has not till repaid the outstanding dues of his said loan installment and for that reason the penal interest is charged and the complainant has filed this case without paying all the installments according to the sanction letter. Under the above circumstances the Ops claimed that the intention of the complainant is clear by not paying the installments of the said loan properly. The penal interest was charged by the Ops on the complainant’s loan as the complainant has not paid the installments properly and at the proper time. There is no hidden cost or hidden interest charged to the said loan account which is clearly reflected from the statement of account of the complainant. The hike in the rate of interest was initially accepted by the complainant which is reflected in the sanction letter and in the other loan documents of the complainant. So the complainant’s claim that the rate of interest differs from the mentioned rate of interest i.e. 11.75%is beyond the knowledge of the complainant, is totally vague and malafide. The Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
Decision with reasons:-
The complainant files application on 05.8.2008 for Rs. 5, 00,000=00under the BSKP loan before the OP-1 Bank. The OP-1 approved the said loan on 22.10.2009, which is repayable after three months from the date of sanction of loan with 11.75% interest of 60 equitable monthly installments @Rs. 7,750=00.
As per the BSKP Scheme, the OP Bank released 70% of the loan amount, i.e. Rs. 3, 50,000=00 in favour of the complainant. But the OP-Bank took the original deed being No. I-3437 dated 31.12.2003.
The complainant argued that there is no mandatory provision to mortgage any deed for disbursing any loan under the BSKP, though the OP-Bank argued in the negative way by stating that there is no circular which prohibits of taking any deed while disbursing the loan. Thus to take the original deed as mentioned above clearly indicates unfair practice on behalf of the OP-Bank.
Secondly, as per BSKP loan, the complainant is to pay 10%of sanctioned loan, i.e. Rs. 50,000=00 but the OP-Bank forcibly took Rs. 65,000=00 instead of Rs. 50,000=00 which also amounts to unfair trade practice.
Thirdly, after 33 installments, Rs. 80,208=00 is deposited by the complainant when an FDR is matured with the OP-Bank and the complainant wanted to know the residual/outstanding loan amount which the OP-Bank informed as Rs. 1, 59,900=00. That was surprising to the complainant as because, after paying 33 EMI @Rs. 7,750=00 and Rs. 80,208=00 at a time, the outstanding loan amount should have been Rs. 1,04,116=00 instead of Rs. 1,59,900=00.
The OP-Bank argued that the discrepancy in calculation of outstanding loan amount arises from the fact that the rate of interest has been increased in the meantime from 11.75% to 14%.
The ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the change in rate of interest should have been intimated to the complainant which is defended by the OP-Bank stating that the information regarding change of rate of interest is shown in their website.
The ld. Advocate for the complainant cited a case record of ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Pankaj Goyal, where it is observed that as per R.B.I. circulars dated 01.7.2006, 01.7.2009, 01.7.2010 & 02.7.2012 that the Banks should re-fix any rate of interest after obtaining the consent of the concerned borrower and furthermore it is the opinion of the borrower whether he wants to continue the loan with the enhanced rate of interest or he could adopt the other option i.e. closing the account or shifting the account, therefore information/consent of the borrower is the predominant clause while charging the floating rate of interest.
Thus the attitude of the OP-Bank is certainly by not taking consent of the complainant/borrower is unfair and cannot impose penal interest on the complainant/borrower.
Lastly, a call for mediation/settlement of the loan account was received by the complainant from the Lok Adalat and accordingly Rs. 80,000=00 was fixed for settlement of closing of the loan account of the complainant. The complainant deposited Rs. 80,000=00 with the Bank forthwith but it was surprisingly refused by the Zonal Office of the OP-bank. It was stated in the written version of the OPs that actually the OP-Bank wanted to settle the matter with Rs. 90,406=00 instead of Rs. 80,000=00 as the outstanding amount of loan of the complainant as stood on 31.12.2013, i.e. if the complainant would have paid Rs. 10,406=00 (Rs. 90,406 – Rs. 80,000) more, the OP-Bank could have closed the said loan account.
The ld. Counsel for the OP-Bank further submitted some documents during argument to prove that the sanctioned letter produced by the complainant is forged/manipulated. As because there is no whisper in the written version or written argument about the manipulation as alleged by the OP-Bank, this Forum is not in a position to take into account of those documents.
On perusing all the documents and hearing the argument at length, this Forum is in favour of the complainant, i.e. the complainant succeeds in his case.
Fees paid is correct.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is allowed on contest with cost. The complainant is directed to pay the outstanding dues of Rs. 10,406=00 to the OP-1 Bank within 30 days from the date of passing of this order and the OP-Bank is directed, after closing the loan account being No. 07400610000298 (BSKP) issue clearance certificate and to return back the Deed being No. I-3437, dated 31.12.2003 as mortgaged earlier, within 15 days from the date of deposit of the outstanding dues of Rs. 10,406=00 by the complainant. The Ops are further directed to pay either jointly or severally Rs. 20,000=00 as the compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 2,000=00 as the litigation cost within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, in default, the Ops are liable to pay penal interest @8% per annum on the decreetal amount for the default period. The complainant is at liberty to put the entire decree in execution as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
