1. This is a petition filed U/S 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for recovery of money, compensation and other reliefs. The petition is filed by the petitioner Sri Kamal Nath against the opposite parties, namely, Chairman – cum – Managing Director, State Bank of India and 3 (Three) Others.
2. The petitioner’s case in brief is that he is an Assistant Teacher of Manderdisa High School, Dima Hasao, Assam and obtained a personal loan from the State Bank of India, Langting Branch, Langting, Dist.- N.C.Hills, Assam. The complainant paid the loan instalments regularly on receipt of his salary, but on last 11/05/2013 and on last 01/11/2013, the opposite party No.4 issued a letter to him showing outstanding balance as Rs.22,875.53 and also wrote to the Head Master of Manderdisa High School for payment of the said amount. The complainant thereafter, wrote a letter to the opposite party No.3 on last 03/12/2012 for waiver of the penal interest of Rs.22,875.00 and then, the Opposite party No.3 requested the Opposite party No.4 to consider the case under special OTS. Thereafter, on last 05/12/2012, the complainant deposited Rs.11,438.00 being the 50% of the penal interest as asked by the opposite party No.3, but in-spite of that, the opposite party No.4 vide letter dated 07/08/2014 again demanded Rs.22,875.53 from the complainant. The complainant after obtaining the statement of account, came to know that Rs.22,875.53P. was shown balance as on 16/10/2014 inclusive of interest but the amount of Rs.11,438.00 deposited on 05/12/2013 was not shown in the statement of account. His further case was that from the statement of account as on 16/10/2014, the balance outstanding was shown as Rs.15,155.53P. but on the same date a sum of Rs.33,438.53 p. was shown as balance and the opposite party hold the salary of the complainant and having no alternative he has paid Rs.33,438.53 p. on the pressure of opposite parties and accordingly, opposite parties issued certificate to the complainant. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties charged interest at their own whims and from the statement off loan account, it is seen that on 12/05/2011 they charged interest @Rs.14% instead of Rs.13.25% without any notice to the complainant and such act on the part of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant filed this petition for passing an order from this Commission to refund the petitioner an amount of Rs.33,438.53 p., compensation of Rs.10,000.00 for mental agony and harassment and an amount of Rs.5,000.00 as cost of litigation.
3. The opposite parties filed their written version and pleaded interalia that the complainant has no cause of action to file this petition before this Commission and that his petition does not attract the provision of section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite parties stated that the complainant was very irregular for repayment of his loan amount for which his account becomes NPA. The opposite party stated that the complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.90,000.00 on 15/06/2005 with condition for repayment on 48 monthly instalment to the paid on or before the 1st day of every month. The opposite parties stated that the complainant started repayment from 22/07/2005 but after some months he changed his salary account from State Bank of India, Langting branch to another branch without knowledge of the branch and thereafter became irregular in repayment. Further version of the opposite parties is that sometimes he paid after one month and sometimes after 2-3 months and because of such irregularities in repayment, penal interest was imposed and balance amount increased. Further case of the opposite parties is that an amount of Rs.22,875.53p. remain outstanding as on 22/09/2009 and after 22/09/2009 no further repayment having been made by the complainant, the account became NPA (Non-Performing Assets) as on 04/05/2011. The opposite parties stated that on 03/03/2011, the complainant submitted an application for exemption of penal interest and the same was rejected by the branch vide letter dated 12/03/2011. They stated that after so many reminders/letters the complainant deposited Rs.11,438.00 only on last 05/12/2013 with a request to consider his case under compromise settlement, but the same was declined by the authorities on the principle that the complainant was in service and capable of paying all outstanding balance. Further averment of the opposite parties is that during September 2014, the branch identified that the complainant had been maintaining his salary account with their State Bank of India, Lumding Branch, so, they called him to repay the outstanding balance but when he did not turn up after many assurance on phone, the opposite parties hold his salary account and thereafter, on 16/10/2014, the complainant came to the bank and asked for compromise and then bank informed him that as he is a service holder and capable to repay his outstanding balance. So, his prayer could not be considered and only then, the complainant agreed to pay his outstanding balance by debiting from his SBI Account at Lumding Branch and thereafter, the opposite party No.4 closed his loan account on 16/10/2014 and issued closer certificate to the complainant.
Under the above premises, the opposite parties prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Upon pleadings of parties, the following points come out for discussion and decision by this Commission:-
i. Whether the opposite parties charged extra interest on the loan account of the complainant arbitrarily and at their whim and whether there was a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as prayed for?
5. Both the contesting parties adduced evidence of one witnesses each and exhibited several documents in support of their evidence. The witnesses were cross examined by the opponents.
6. Written argument filed by opposite parties and perused the same.
7. Findings and reasons there of:-
For the sake of brevity both the points are taken jointly for discussion and decision.
The claim of the petitioner is that he availed a personal loan from State Bank of India, Langting branch and though he regularly repaid the instalment amount, yet, the opposite party imposed penal interest on him and hold his salary account in S.B.I. He further claimed that he was forced to pay the penal interest though he asked for settlement of the loan account. On the other hand the opposite parties claimed that the complainant was very irregular in repayment of the loan availed by him from the opposite party No.4 for which penal interest was imposed on him as per terms and condition of the bank policy and the repayment amount increased and there is no deficiency of service on their part.
In support of his plea, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1. In his evidence in affidavit, he deposed to the effect that he being an assistant Teacher of Manderdisa High School, Dima Hasao, Assam obtained a personal loan of Rs.90,000.00 from S.B.I. Langting branch and regularly paid the instalment amount towards repayment of the said loan but the opposite party No.4 issued letter to his on 11/05/2013, 01/11/2013 showing the balance outstanding Rs.22,875.53P. and also wrote to the Head Master of his school for payment of the said amount. Further evidence of P.W.1 is that he wrote a letter to opposite party No.3 on 03/12/2013 from waiver of his penal interest of Rs.22,875.00 and then opposite party No.3 requested the opposite party No.4 to consider his case under special OTS and thereafter, the complainant on 05/12/2013 deposited Rs.11,438.00 in the bank being 50% of the penal interest. The P.W.1 again deposited that in-spite of his payment of 50% penal interest, the opposite party No.4 vide letter dated 07/08/2014 again demanded Rs.22,875.53P. and when he obtained statement of account, found that Rs.22,875.53P. was shown balance as on 16/10/2014 inclusive of interest but the amount of Rs.11,438.00 deposited on 05/12/2013 was not shown in the statement of account. The complainant as P.W.1 further adduced evidence that from the statement of his account, it was found that on 16/10/2014 balance outstanding was shown as Rs.15,155.53P. but on the same date an amount of Rs.33,438.59 was shown as outstanding balance and the opposite parties hold his salary account for which seeing no other alternative he paid Rs.33,438.52P. to the bank and they issued certificate to him. The complainant as P.W.1 also deposed that the opposite parties charged interest on him whimsically and arbitrarily which amounts to deficiency of service on their part for which he is entitled to be refunded back the excess interest and receive compensation for mental harassment.
The opposite parties examined one Sri Gaurab Chakravartty, Branch Manager, S.B.I., Langting branch as D.W.1. In his evidence this witness deposed that the complainant being Assistant Teacher of Manderdisa High School availed a personal loan of Rs.90,000.00 from his bank with condition to repay the same in 48 equal installment to be paid from next month on or before 1st day of every month. The P.W.1 further deposed that repayment of the complainant started from 22/07/2005 but after payment of same installment, the complainant without knowledge of branch changed his salary account from Langting branch to another branch of S.B.I. and became irregular in making repayment. He deposed that the complainant sometimes pay after one month, sometimes after 2/3 months and as because of such irregularities, penal interest was imposed on him and the outstanding balance increased and on 22/09/2009 outstanding balance became Rs.22,875.53P. The D.W.1 further deposed that after 22/09/2009, no further payment was made by the complainant and hence, his account No.11879264821 became NPA (Non-Performing Assets) as on 04/05/2011. Further evidence of D.W.1 is that on 03/03/2011, the complainant submitted an application in the bank for exemption of the penal interest imposed on him and the same was declined by the Controlling Authority as the complainant was in service and capable to repay his loan amount. Further evidence of D.W.1 is that during September 2014, the branch identified that the complainant had been maintaining his salary Account with S.B.I., Lumding branch and as such, he was called on to repay back his outstanding loan amount but when he did not turn up after many assurance, the bank kept hold his salary account. The D.W.1 again deposed that on last 16/10/2014, the complainant came to his bank and asked for compromise settlement and then he was informed that as he was in service and capable to repay bank his loan amount and as such, question of compromise does not arise and only then, the complainant agreed to pay the outstanding balance by debiting the same from his S.B.I. account maintained in Lumding branch being Account No.11280080739 and after realizing the balance amount, the bank closed the loan account of the complainant on 16/10/2014 and issued closer certificate to him. The D.W.1 further deposed that the interest calculated by the bank against the loan account of the complainant was as per norms of RBI and not arbitrary and hence, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. He also exhibited loan account statement of the complainant side vide Exhibit A.
8. Thus, the admitted position is that the petitioner obtained a personal loan from the opposite party No.4 on condition to repay back the said amount in 48 equal installment. The opposite parties alleged that the complainant was found irregular in repayment of his loan amount for which panel interest was imposed upon him and balance amount was increased. The complainant alleged that that the opposite parties charged interest on him whimsically and arbitrarily which amounts to deficiency of service on their part for which he is entitled to be refunded back the excess interest and receive compensation for mental harassment. The opposite parties pleaded and adduced evidence that the interest calculated by the bank against the loan account of the complainant was as per norms of RBI and not arbitrary and hence, there was no deficiency of service on their part. The complainant however failed to adduce anything to support that the interest rate on his loan account was assessed arbitrarily and against the norms set by R.B.I. The complainant failed to show that he was regular in repayment of his loan amount for which penal interest should not be imposed upon him. Thus, it is found that the opposite parties rightfully imposed penal interest on the complainant and no excess interest was charged from him and he does not suffer any mental harassment due to any negligent act of the opposite parties was and as such, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. On the other hand complainant himself being a responsible person of the society failed to pay regularly the installment amount of the laon which he availed from the opposite party No.4 and thus, he is not entitled for any relief from this commission.
9. In view of above discussion and decision held therein, points (i) and (ii) are answered in negative.
O R D E R
10. In view of the above discussion, it is found that the petitioner has failed to prove that there is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in the instant case.
Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner U/S 12 of the Consumer protection is dismissed on contest with cost.
Inform all the parties concern.
Given under the hand and seal of this Commission, we signed and delivered this Judgment on this 7th Day of December 2021.
