Mr. Sudip Niyogi, President
Facts of the instance complaint in short is that the Complainant had applied for a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- under the PMEGR scheme and his loan was sanctioned on 19.12.12, subsidy was Rs.52,500/- and his shared was Rs.7,500/-. He also opened one loan Account being No.16000100041317 with the O.P. The said loan was recoverable at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month. However, after initial repayment of instalment, the Complainant found some problems in his family and could not repay the outstanding dues of the loan. Subsequently, on consultation with the Branch Manager of the O.P. it was agreed that his outstanding dues would be repaid through UKC loan. Accordingly, on 15.09.15 a sum of Rs.83,000/- was deducted from his Account through UKC. It is alleged by the Complainant that the O.P. following written calculation deducted Rs.83,000/- from his Account instead of Rs.70,000/-. Later, Complainant came to know by updating his Pass Book that the subsidy amount of Rs. 52,500/- was credited to his Savings Bank Account but astonishingly the said amount was withdrawn at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- on 10.06.13 and 11.06.13 and Rs.12,000/- on 13.06.13. According to Complainant, he did not withdraw the said amount and the said amount was withdrawn fraudulently by someone else in connivance with the members of the O.P. On being approached the O.P. Bank did not pay any heed in this regard. So, Complainant filed this case praying for Rs.52,000/- being the amount of subsidy which was fraudulently withdrawn and for an order of excess repayment of loan of Rs.13,000/- through UKC and also for compensation etc.
The O.P. Bank by filing a written version and also evidence contested the complaint. The Bank denied the allegations of the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the instant case maintainable?
- Is the Complainant is entitled to get any relief?
- To what other relief, if any, Complainant is entitled?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1.
During hearing neither party submitted anything about the maintainability of the instance case. Moreover, considering the materials on record we find the instant case is maintainable.
Point No. 2 & 3.
The Complainant expressed his grievances on two counts First that Rs.52,000/- which was the amount of subsidy in connection with his loan under PMEGR scheme was fraudulently withdrawn by someone else from his Account in connivance with the staff of the O.P. Bank. Secondly, Bank deducted Rs.13,000/- extra towards the payment of his dues in connection with his loan under PMEGR scheme.
We find the O.P. Bank admitted that they had advanced Rs.90,000/- in total towards disbursement of the loan on different dates( Para 16 of W/V).
Regarding the first grievance we find the specific signature of the Complainant along with the disputed signature in connection with the withdrawal of the amount of subsidy were sent to the Handwriting Expert and following the opinion of the Handwriting Expert received from the Questioned Document Examination Bureau, C.I.D., West Bengal, the signatures i.e. specific signature and also the disputed signature were found to be made by same person. So, following the expert opinion about the signature, Complainant’s claim of fraudulent withdrawal of amount of subsidy from his Account loses to stand.
As to his second grievance it is found that as contended by the O.P. that the Complainant paid only Rs.25,243/- towards his loan within 31.03.15 and the irregularity of loan became NPA. Thereafter O.P. sent a demand notice through their Lawyer demanding the amount of Rs.73,408.95/- the said notice was issued on 04.06.15. The Account statement produced on behalf of the O.P. in respect of the Account of the Complainant reveals Rs.83,300/- was found to have been deposited on 31.03.15 in respect of his dues towards Bank and prior to that i.e. on 30.04.14 the balance of his dues was Rs.73,408.95/-. In the demand notice issued to the Complainant this amount was mentioned. But at the same time it was claimed in the said demand notice that the Complainant was to pay the said amount of Rs.73,408.95/- and also accrued interest + outstanding interest till realization as we find the amount of Rs.73,408.95/- was the balance of dues as on 03.07.14. Whereas the entire dues was paid on 31.03.15. So, the excess amount beyond Rs.73,408.95/- was the amount of accrued interest or outstanding interest upon the dues. Complainant failed to produce any cogent document in support of his contention. Complainant did not specify actually what would be the amount of outstanding dues including interest. So, on considering of the materials on record we find there is no merit in this case and the instance case is liable to be dismissed.
Thus, the issues are decided against the Complainant.
This case is liable to be dismissed.
Hence,
Ordered
That the present Case No. CC/22/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
