West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/31/2020

Sri Ajit Kumar Dutta, S/O- Late Asutosh Dutta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Nayabazar Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Somen Saha

15 Dec 2022

ORDER

The instant case has been initiated by the complainant U/S – 12 of C.P. Act,1986 against the Opposite Parties claiming amount of Rs. 52,530 /- with interest + Compensation Rs.50,000/- + Litigation cost Rs.15,000/- Total Rs. 1,17,530.  

The fact of the case, in brief, is that the Complainant is a retired person. During continuance of his service, the Complainant used to draw his salary through the Bank Account lying at branch of the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant during his service applied for House Building Loan before Opposite Party No.1 and the Bank Authority sanctioned House Building Loan through the loan sanction letter Ref. No. Adv/HBL/Others/3663/6230/05 dated 13.12.2005 for an amount of Rs.4,95,000/- vide loan account no.53920300000040 in favour of the Complainant. It has been mentioned in the sanctioned letter that the repayment ought to have made in 141 equated monthly installment @ Rs.6,020/- only. As per the said relevant portion the borrower shall have to pay Rs.6020/- x 141 = Rs.8,48,820/- and as the Complainant has salary account at the branch of the Opposite Parties, it was settled that the Bank Authority shall deduct the said amount directly from the salary account in each and every month. Accordingly, the Complainant has paid amount more than nine lakh which is in excess of the amount payable as per HBL. The Complainant on several occasion went to the Opposite Party and requested for making arrangement for closure of the loan account and refund back the excess amount which has been deducted from the account of the Complainant against the said loan account but the Bank Authority by showing some excuse in all time compelled the Complainant to return back. After few days, it came to the notice of the Complainant that the Opposite Parties as per their whims and wishes without giving any information to the Complainant has deducted Rs.6020 for 4 consecutive installment in 5 months ( since 10.01.2006 to 04.05.2006 ) and thereafter since June,2006 to September,2016 Bank Authority has deducted the installment @ Rs.5550/- and since October,2016 to till date the the Opposite Parties have deducting the installment of the said HBL @ Rs.6,1000/- p.m. The Opposite Parties never intimated the Complainant, the reason behind the automatic decrease and increase of the installment amounts from time to time and kept the Complainant in dark. The Complainant requested on several occasion to the Opposite Parties to refund the excess amount and issue Loan Clearance Certificate but the Opposite Parties did not pay heed. Lastly on 13.07.2018, the Complainant sent an Advocate letter to the Opposite Party No.1 for closure of the HBL account and to refund the excess deducted amount. On 31.07.2018, the Opposite Party No.1 replied that there is outstanding dues of Rs. 01,49,362/- and after realization of the said amount , they will close the account. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties to solve the problem but in vain. Having no alternative the complainant filed the instant case for relief as prayed for.

            Notice were duly served upon the opposite Parties and after receiving the notice, the Opposite Parties appeared before this commission and filed their written version.

            By filing written version, the opposite parties denied the material allegation of the complainant. The Opposite Parties have admitted the fact that the HBL was given on 22.12.2005 to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs. 95,000/- on 12.01.2006 to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties have further stated that the Complainant took several loans i.e. one Festival loan, another extension of House Building Loan and also a personal loan during the pendency of his House Building Loan. The personal loan vide account no.5390300003261 was became NPA on 31.12.2018 due to non-payment of monthly installment by the Complainant and the Complainant till date not cleared the outstanding dues lying against said account also. At the initial stage  for four months, the Opposite Party No.1 gets the EMI amount @ Rs.6020/- p.m. and after that on request of the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 gets the EMI amount @ Rs.5550/- p.m. on and from 05.06.2006 onwards. As such the Complainant never raised any objection regarding deduction of amount of Rs.5550/- as EMI from his salary account up to 01.09.2016. On and from 01.10.2016, the Complainant requested Opposite Party No.1 to deduct Rs.6100/-p.m. as EMI @ Rs.6100/- on 02.06.2018 and since after that HBL loan account became inoperative  and the outstanding dues against HBL loan account became Rs.01,49,362/-. Without payment of said outstanding dues plus up to date interest to the Bank Authority, the Complainant is not entitled to get any clearance certificate from Opposite Party No.1. It appears from the statement of salary account of the Complainant that he has deducted EMI of HBL, Festival Loan, Extension of HBL and Personal Loan from his salary account. The Complainant retired from his service and he got last month salary account on 07.04.2018 and since May, 2018 the Complainant does noe maintain sufficient balance in his salary account of the Complainant. The Complainant deliberately not paid monthly installments of his two existing loan accounts i.e. HBL and Personal Loan. The calculation made by the Complainant in his plaint is not correct because the EMI has been calculated over the present rate of interest when the loan was sanctioned. But the rate of interest is not fixed one. The rate of interest has been calculated on floating basis and the changes have been reflected in the statement of account. Said statement of account has always been provided by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant as and when requested. There is no negligence and deficiency in service on the Part of the Opposite Parties. Hence, the case is liable to be dismissed.

                  To prove his case, the complainant has filed photo copies of 

(i)  Letter dated 31.07.2018 of O.P.No,1 to the Complainant

(ii)   Term Loan Ledger

(iii) Pass Book of the Complainant

(iv)  Sanction letter

(v)  Advocate`s letter dated 13.07.2018 to the O.P.No.1          

          On the other hand, the Opposite Party No. 1 has filed some photo copies of documents in support of his defense  

(i) Acknowledgement of Complainant regarding service of Bank Statement

(ii) Prayer of Complainant dated 01.12.2015 & 04.07.2017

(iii) tatement of salary account of the Complainant

(iv) Statement of HBL A/C No. 5390300000040 of Complainant

(v) Statement of Personal Loan A/C No. 5390300003261 of Complainant

(vi) Statement of Festival Loan accounts of the Complainant

                  

          In view of the above mentioned facts, the following points are cropped up for consideration

      POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

             

         1.  Whether the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Parties?

         2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite

              Parties ?            

     3.  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for? 

 

                                         DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

           We have heard argument by Ld. Advocate for the complainant and  opposite parties  at length. We have also gone through the evidence on affidavit and written argument filed by all the parties. We also perused the documents produced by the Complainant and the Opposite Parties before this Commission.           

              At the time of argument Ld advocate for the Complainant narrated the fact of the case as mentioned in the plaint. He has further stated that in spite of total repayment of the House Building Loan, the Opposite Party No.1did not issue loan clearance certificate rather he is claiming Rs.1,49,362/- as outstanding dues. The Opposite Party No.1 whimsically and his own wishes increased and decreased the interest of HBL time to time without intimating the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 has acted against stipulated the rate of interest as mentioned in the sanction letter and deducted excess amount of Rs.52,530/- from the salary account of the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 has not produced the details of calculation on the basis of which he claimed the outstanding dues. There is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Hence, the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

     In support of his contention, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant produced copy of two judgments of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab.

                 On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 argued that the Complainant is willful defaulter of HBL installment. After his retirement, the Complainant did not paid the dues installments. The Opposite Party No.1 always provided the statement of all types of loan accounts to the Complainant. The Interest of HBL is a floating rate of interest and it increases and decreases time to time. There is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The present complaint is mala fide and motivated and has been filed with a view to make illegal gains. So, there is no question arises about deficiency in service hence, the claim petition must be dismissed.

              Now, let us discuss all the points one by one. 

Point No. 1   

 

           On perusal of materials on record, it appears that the complainant applied for loan  before the  Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.1 sanctioned House Building  Loan amount of Rs. 4,95,000 /- to the complainant and as such the complainant is a consumer under the Opposite Parties U/S 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

           Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant. 

 

Point Nos. 2 & 3  

 

           Both these points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.

           It reveals from the four statements of account  produced by the Opposite Party No.1 in the name of the Complainants that the Complainant had taken four loans from the Opposite Party No.1and each loan has their separate code and all the installments of the four loans have been deducted from the salary account of the Complainant  but we have only concerned with the House Building Loan being account no. 5390300000040 whose code no. is HBL BG 80394. The other loan of the Complainant is not the subject matter of this case. Further, on perusal of the sanction letter of HBL., it appears that an amount of Rs.4,95,000/- has been sanctioned to the Complainant on 13.12.2005 vide Ref. no. Adv/HBL/ others/ 3663/6230/05 and mode of repayment is in 141 equated monthly installment @ Rs.6,020/-..

  Now, it is the contention of the Complainant that the Bank Authority have deducted Rs.52,530/- excess amount what was payable to the Opposite Parties The Opposite Parties are entitled actually to get Rs.8,48,820/- but they deducted Rs.9,01,350/- so. The excess amount deducted should be refunded. On the other hand, it is the contention of the Opposite Parties that the rate of interest has been calculated on floating basis and the changes have been reflected in the statement of account. It is further contention of the Opposite Parties that the Complainant lastly paid the EMI @ Rs.6,100/- on 02.06.2018 and since after that the HBL loan account became inoperative and the outstanding dues against HBL loan account became Rs.01,49,362/-. Here, in the sanction letter it has not been mentioned that the rate of interest is floating or fixed but it has been mentioned that such other rates may be communicated to the Complainant time to time. It is the allegation of the Complainant that no intimation has been given to the Complainant regarding increase or decrease of the rate of interest. On the other hand ,it is contended by the Opposite Parties that the rate of interest has been decrease or increase on the request of the Complainant which is fully denied by the Complainant and the Opposite Parties have also failed to produce any document to prove their contention. In this regard, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has observed in Mr. Vishnu Bansal Vs ICICI Bank Ltd. on 11.05.2021 that even if the Opposite Party has  given right to change the rate of interest charged on the loan, it does not automatically confer a power upon the Opposite Parties to increase or decrease of interest without apprising the borrower/ Complainant about the change in interest charged or the number of EMIs. In simple terms, an opportunity must be afforded to the Borrower before changing the floating rate of interest. In the instant case, the Opposite Parties have failed to prove that they have intimated the Complainant before changing the rate of interest upon the loan. Simply, stating that the increasing or decreasing of rate of interest has been mentioned in the statement of account is not sufficient to satisfy the Commission. Apart from it, the Opposite Parties have demanded Rs.1,49,362/- as outstanding dues on the part of the Complainant but he failed to disclose the rate of interest imposed upon the loan time to time without intimating to the Complainant. As per sanction letter, the Complainant has to pay the loan of Rs.4,95,000/- with condition to pay Rs.6020/- as EMI for consecutive 141 months i.e. Rs.8,48,820/- and the said amount has been paid as reflected in the statement of account and not only that the Complainant has paid Rs.9,01,350/- in total against the said loan. Thus, the Complainant is entitled to get refund of the excess amount Rs.52,530/- which has been deducted excess amount from the salary account of the Complainant by the Opposite Parties.

           It is the contention of the Opposite Parties that the Complainant got retired from his service in the month of April,2018 and he got last month salary in his account on 07.04.2018 and since May,2018, the Complainant did not maintain sufficient balance in his salary account. But on perusal of the statement of account of the Complainant  which has been submitted by the Opposite Parties, it appears that the Opposite Parties have deducted EMI of Rs.6,100/- on 02.05.2018 and again EMI of Rs.6,100/- on 02.06.2018. Here, the point of discussion  is that when the Complainant has repaid the total loan amount till the month of Apri,2018 then it is up to the Complainant whether he keeps sufficient balance in his loan account or not. 

            .      In view of the above mentioned discussions, it has been established that the Complainant is a bona fide consumer to the Opposite Party No.1 and there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.

               Accordingly, both these points are decided in favour of the Complainant. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Hence, it is

                                                        O R D E R E D 

 

            That the Consumer Case No. 31 of 2020 is allowed on contest in part against the Opposite Parties but with cost.

           The Opposite Parties are directed to refund jointly or severally Rs.52,530/- together with an interest at the  Banks rate from 28.02.2020 (date of filing) to the Complainant by issuing an account payee cheque in favour of the complainant  within 45 days from the date of passing of this order. The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost by issuing  account payee cheque in favour of the complainant  within 45 days from the date of passing of this order.

          The Opposite Parties are further directed to issue Loan Clearance Certificate in favour of the Complainant against the Loan Account No.53920300000040 within the above mentioned period   failing which the Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per law.

              Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.