District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.208/2021.
Date of Institution: 08.04.2021.
Date of Order: 18.11.2022.
Hoshiyar Wati wife of late Shri Rajbir R/o House NO. 2623, Adarsh Nagar, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, Haryana.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
State Bank of India, Branch Sector-11, Faridabad, Plot No. 11, Sector-11, Faridabad through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite party……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member
PRESENT: Sh. Pankaj Parashar, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Mahender Kumar Sharma, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the husband of the complainant had availed the housing loan of Rs.20,00,000/- from the opposite party vide loan account No. 65133128993 and the said loan was repayable by the borrower in monthly EMI @ Rs.22,641/- per month and EMI was commenced from 03.02.2012. The said loan availed by the husband of the complainant and the complainant was co-applicant of the said loan account. The EMIs of the said loan was regularly paying by the husband of the complainant. Unfortunately, the husband of the complainant met with an accident and after long treatment, he died on 08.09.2019 and the complainant and her entire family members were in great trauma of death of Shri Rajbir Singh (husband of the complainant), but the complainant kept continue to pay the regular EMIs of the said loan. After death of husband of the complainant, the source of earnings came into an end except meager pension and the complainant was facing great financial hardship and hence due to such boanfide reason, she could not make some EMIs during lockdown period. Even during lockdown period, the Government of India as well as Reserve Bank of India issued guidelines to the banks, financial institutions not to charge any unnecessary penalty interest if any borrower failed to pay the EMIs during the period of lockdown. The complainant with a motive to settle the account of aforesaid loan account, because she was not able to pay the EMIs regularly and hence she sold her some land for the repayment of aforesaid loan amount. In the month of August, 2020 the complainant approached the opposite party to settle the account in lump-sum and the opposite party assured the complainant that the bank should settle the account and asked the complainant to come in the end of September,2020 for the settlement and accordingly, the complainant entered into an agreement to sell her some land and then approached the opposite party for settlement of said amount and after great persuasion, the opposite party agreed to settle the account on 14.12.2020 and the opposite party told the complainant total outstanding amount of Rs.17,22,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant issued two cheques of Rs.17,22,000/- (Rs.14,50,000/- + Rs.2,72,.000/-), but the opposite party in an illegal manner shown the said cheques as bounced, whereas, sufficient balance was available in the bank account of the complainant and the officials of the opposite party felt sorry for such illegal act and assured the complainant that they would deposit the said cheques for its encashment, but the opposite party again in an illegal manner go the said cheques bounced. Thereafter, the complainant again approached the opposite party to know the reason for the same and on the suggestion of the opposite party, the complainant transferred a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- through NEFT in the said loan account on 01.01.2021. Thereafter, on 04.01.2021 the complainant again visited with balance amount of Rs.22,368/- and requested the opposite party to provide NDC/No Dues certificate in respect of the said loan account and to receive the aforesaid balance amount of Rs.22,368/-, but the complainant became shocked and surprised to know that the opposite party in an illegal manner shown flimsy/false, forged and fabricated charges of Rs.1,80,000/- approx and hence the complainant demanded the statement of accounts of the same and the opposite party had provided the same on seeing the same the complainant became shocked and surprised to see that the opposite party had charged 18 times @ Rs.10,000/- on same day i.e. on 28.12.2020 as jurist dot fees and the complainant requested the opposite party clarify such charge of jurist dot but the opposite party did not explain/clear the said illegal charge and even thereafter, the complainant made uncounted requests to correct the said loan account and to receive actual dues of Rs.22,368/-, but the opposite party willfully avoided the matter on one pretext or the other. The RBI issued the guidelines that during lockdown, financial institutions shall not charge any penalty from the borrower, but such act of the opposite party was also against the guidelines of the RBI. The complainant sent legal notice dated 25.02.021 to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) receive the actual outstanding amount of Rs.22,368/-.
b) issue No Dues Certificate in respect of Loan account No. 65133128993.
c) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
d) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the present complaint case was not relating to the deficient services because even from the perusal of the contents of the complaint it was clear that the dispute was regarding between the alleged amount which was being claimed as excessively paid by the complainant. Thus, it was clear that the dispute was not regarding the deficient services on the part of the opposite party. It was submitted that the nature of dispute was civil in nature, hence, jurisdiction of this Commission was denied. The present complaint had been filed by the complainant without accruing any cause of action in his favour and against the answering opposite party. It was also submitted that the complainant himself had failed to specify any cause of action in his favour against the answering opposite party.
It was submitted that after the death of her husband, the complainant had not only received huge amount of several lacs toward service benefit but also, she had been receiving handsome amount towards pension, hence, the plea was taken by the complainant was not tenable in eyes of law. It was submitted that the complainant being the co-applicant had equivalent liability as of the deceased husband who was the principal applicant. It was further submitted that the complainant had paid EMI upto 22,641/- but since thereafter she had not paid anything to the opposite party despite repeated request and demand. It was submitted that no such instruction/guidelines were issued either by RBI or opposite party. However, option of moratorium was given to the borrower which was strictly optional, according to which additional interest was chargeable during the moratorium period. But complainant neither availed the consortium nor paid EMI. It was further submitted that the complainant was defaulting in payment of EMI since much prior to the lockdown situation. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party– State Bank of India with the prayer to: a) receive the actual outstanding amount of Rs.22,368/-. b) issue No Dues Certificate in respect of Loan account No. 65133128993. c) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . d) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Hoshiyar Wati, Ex.C1 – death certificate,, Ex.C-2 – statement of account from 03.02.2012 to 04.2.2021, Ex.C-3 – statement of account from 03.02.2012 to 04.02.2021, Ex.C-4 – application dated 03.02.2021, Ex.C-5 – legal notice, Ex.C-6 – postal receipt, Ex.C-7 – statement of account from 31.03.2020 to 31.03.2021.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and
opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW-1 – affidavit of Sushil Chadda working as Chief Manager, State Bank of India, B/w SBI, RACPC, Sector-16, Faridabad.
6. In this complaint, the complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer to: a) receive the actual outstanding amount of Rs.22,368/-. b) issue No Dues Certificate in respect of Loan account No. 65133128993.
7. After going through the evidence led by the complainant that the husband of the complainant has borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. Rajbir Singh who died on 08.09.2019 vide Ex.C1. After the death of Rajvir Singh @ Rajbir Singh, the complainant has given an application dated 03.02.2021 to the opposite party vide Ex,.C4 which is duly received by opposite party on 04.02.2021 and the complainant has filed the complaint on 08.04.2021.
8. During the course of arguments, Shri Sunil Diwakar, Manager P &A was called by this Hon’ble Commission. Shri Sunil Diwakar, Manager P&A appeared before this Commission and submitted documents vide Ex.Y – date of NPA of the account of the complainant dated 03.11.2019, Ex.Z – letter dated 17.10.2020 regarding proceedings of legal action under Sarfaesi Act 2002 for Symbolic possession of pledged house, Ex.R regarding illustrative chart for calculation of commission for payment of commission to Resolution agents & Ex.R-X statement of account of the complainant from 01..01.2020 to 14.11.2020.
9. As per the statement of the complainant vide Ex.C3, the charges taken by the opposite party i.e. bank in different mode like on the same date i.e 28.12.2020, opposite party has made 23 transactions on the same day each of
Rs.10,000/-. Legal notice was given to the opposite party i.e. State Bank of India vide Ex.C5. NO reply was filed by the opposite party and opposite party has also tendered statement of account vide Ex.R-X In which approximate 20 transaction was done in a day.
10. After going through the statement of account filed by Shri Sunil Diwakar, Manager P&A, no doubt the opposite party has taken the recovery of Rs.1,80,000/- as per the circular given by the Manager P&A. But as per the evidence of the complainant and the opposite party, it seems that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Opposite party was given several opportunities to lead their evidence but the opposite party never tendered this circular and other relevant evidence. This proves the deficiency in service on their part. But this is a public money we can’t disburse blindly anyone.
11. Keeping in view of the above submissions, the Commission is of the opinion that there are lot of efforts done by the complainant to pay the loan amount to the opposite party. As per Ex.C4, the complainant has given an application dated 03.02.2021 to the opposite party which is duly received by the opposite party on 04.02.2021and the complainant has filed the complaint on 08.04.2021 which shows the opposite party never bothered about the legal notice and application by the complainant. Complaint is also closing his account, which shows the bonafide of the complainant. In the interest of justice, the complaint is partly allowed.
12. Opposite party is directed to charge only recovery amount and after charging recovery amount which shows in the statement of account, opposite party will issue the NOC without taking the hidden charges, cheque bouncing and after the date when the opposite party received the money of Rs.17,00,000/- , opposite party won’t charge any type of other expenses i.e. interest, debit adjustment, legal fees etc. because the borrower Rajvir Singh was died on 08.09.2019 and the application was given by the complainant to issue the NOC and to pay the balance loan amount of Rajvir Singh. The opposite party is directed to raise a demand after over hauling the account of the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter the complainant will deposit the amount to opposite party within 30 days. There are no order as to costs.Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 18.11..2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
