Abhinaba Naik - Complainant(s)


Chief Manager, Bank of India, Khariar Branch - Opp.Party(s)

03 Feb 2024


Complaint Case No. CC/15/2022
( Date of Filing : 28 Nov 2022 )
1. Abhinaba Naik
At-Gadramunda, Po-Chindaguda, Dist-Nuapada
1. Chief Manager, Bank of India, Khariar Branch
At/Po/Ps-Khariar, Dist-Nuapada
 HON'BLE MR. Purna Chandra Mishra PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Sudhakar Senapothi MEMBER
Dated : 03 Feb 2024
Final Order / Judgement

Mr. Sudhakar Senapothi -Member

Complainant Abhinaba Naik has filed this case alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party for not restructuring his loan account as per RBI guidelines during Covid-19  and misbehaving him in the bank premises praying therein for direction to the Opposite Party Bank to extend the repayment period waive the interest over the balance principal amount, to make one time settlement on installment basis not to sale the house of the petitioner through auction till disposal of the case, to pay compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards harassment and cost of litigation.


  1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant had applied for housing loan from the Opposite Party Bank. He was paying his dues regularly but during the pandemic situation, the OP Bank in violation of the RBI guide lines did not allow him moratorium period and threatened to sale away his property for which he has filed this case before this Commission for the reliefs as prayed for as discussed in the preceding paragraph.
  2.           After receipt of notice, the OP Bank appeared through their Advocate and filed written statement. In their written statement, the Opposite Party Bank stated that the complainant did not agree to cover his housing loan under the insurance scheme. As the complainant did not repay his loan in time, several notices were sent to him and he did not respond, not deposited installments for which his loan became NPA and the bank proceeded to recover the loan under the provision of the SARFESI Act-2002 and notice was served on him under section 13 (2) of the Act. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief and the case against them be dismissed with costs.
  3.           The complainant in support of his case has filed following the documents. Copy of the Judgment order date 27-11-2020 passed by Honorable Supreme court of India, civil original jurisdiction vide writ petition (civil) No.825 of 2020,  Copy of Loan Moratorium case supreme court orders waiver of compound interest for all Borrowers. ,  Copy of illegal deduction amounts of schedule, Copy of Loan statement vide A/c No-535975110000002 form Dt.24-03-2021 to Dt.31-05-2022 Moratorium period, Copy of Loan statement vide A/c No-535975110000002 from Dt.13-03-2013 to Dt.08-02-2023 period, Copy of Reserve Bank of India Dt.09-01-2023, centralized receipt and processing centre (CRPC), Copy of R.T.I. replay date 25-11-2022 from B.O.I. Sambalpur Zonal Office Ref-No-BOI:20:SBP:GOD:2022-23-128,  Copy of Star home loan master circular guideline loan for payment of Insurance premium to cover life of Borrower. , Copy of R.T.I. apply Dt.10-01-2023 regarding Dt.15-11-2022 C.C.T.V. footage and other document, Copy of the date 12-07-2016 Copy of complaint against B.M. B.O.I, Khariar,  Copy of confessional letter Dt.17-07-2016, issued by Amit Ray deputy General Manager and Zonal Manager Bank of India, Bhubaneswar, Copy of DT.13-02-2023 R.T.I. first appel file before the first appeal authority B.O.I , Khariar Branch.  On the other hand, the Opposite Party has not filed any document and has filed his evidence in shape of affidavit.
  4.           From the pleadings and counter pleadings of the parties, it is to be ascertained whether the complainant is a consumer or not and whether the case is maintainable in this Commission and whether the complainant is entitle to any relief or not?
  5.           In the present case, the case relates to a dispute arising out of housing loan advanced for the complainant by the OP Bank since the complainant is admittedly a loanee. It is settled principle of the loan that the loanee enjoy the status of the consumer and therefore the complainant is a consumer as per the provision of C.P.Act-2019.
  6.           The next question arises whether the case is maintainable or not? A plain reading of the complaint petition goes to show that the complainant has challenged the arrogant behavior and violation of the RBI guidelines not adhered by the bank. The complainant has alleged that the bank has not granted him the moratorium period as per the direction issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the RBI guidelines in relation to the lonees during the pandemic situation of Covid-19.
  7.           The OP Bank on the other hand has stated in his written statement in Para-4 that the bank authority restructured the loan amount of the complainant under RFSRS. But, the complainant intentionally not repaying the loan regularly. Since the matter relates to the non implementation of the RBI guidelines and order of the Apex Court. In that regard, the case is maintainable as it relates to deficiency in service. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the OP stated that the case is not maintainable as the complainant has challenged the proceedings under the provision of the SARFSI Act-2002. But, on perusal of the record and the perusal of the prayers in the complaint petition does not whisper a single word regarding challenging the action of the Opposite Party under the provision of the SARFSI Act-2002. Since the complainant does not challenge the proceedings under the SARFSI Act-2002, but has made an allegation of deficiency in service as regard not structuring of the loan amount as per RBI guidelines, the case is maintainable before this Commission.
  8.           Now the question is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party? Even though the Opposite Party Bank has filed its written statement and his evidence in shape of affidavit, there is nothing in the affidavit which goes to state that when and how the loan has been restructured. The statement of accounts does not show consistent periods when the loan has been brought under restructuring process. It is seen from the documents on record that restructuring has been done from 24.03.2001 to 31.05.2022. But, the statement of the accounts filed by the bank goes to show that during this period, penalty has been charged on the loanee on 26.02.2021, 30.03.2021, 30.04.2021, 29.05.2021, 30.06.2021. So, the statement of the accounts filed by the OP Bank does not tally with the report given to the RBI. Therefore, it is evident from the documents that the OP Bank has adopted double standard in dealing with the complainant. The written statement is totally silent as to how much the complainant has defaulted till his loan was declared NPA. So, in our opinion, the bank has not come with clean hands to this Commission.
  9.           During the pendency of case, both the parties entered into a settlement between themselves outside this Commission. As per the settlement, the loan will be closed on payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- by way of one time settlement and the complainant has filed the copy of the deposit slips in support of the contention that he has deposited the whole amount on 16th and 17th November-2023. He has also enclosed a copy of the application addressed to the OP to provide him with No Due Certificate and return all his original documents produced at the time of availing the loan. As the matter has been amicably settled between themselves outside the Court, the prayer from 1 to 4 has become influctutous and the only prayer left is regards unfair trade practice and payment of compensation arising out of that.
  10. From the discussion above, it is very much clear that the OP Bank has failed to discharge its duty in accordance with the loan agreement and has harassed the loanee by not acting in accordance with the direction issued by the RBI regarding restructuring of the loan during COVID-19 and hence the order.

                                                                                  O  R  D  E  R


The complaint petition is allowed in part against the OP Bank. The OP is made liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20, 000/- towards compensation for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. The OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the order as to cost and compensation shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till its compliance. 

[HON'BLE MR. Purna Chandra Mishra]
[HON'BLE MR. Sudhakar Senapothi]

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.