This complaint U/S 35 of C.P. Act, 2019 was initially filed against the Opposite Party (O.P.) 1) The Branch Maneger, The Bandhan Bank, Dhupguri Branch, Having its office at Netaji Road, Mill Para, Dhupguri, P.S. & P.O.- Dhupguri, Pin Code- 735210 and 2) The Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer, The Bandhan Bank, Having its office at Floor 12 to 14 Adventz Infinity@ 5 BN 5, Sector V, Salt Lake City,Kolkata, Pin – 700091. P.S. – Bidhan Nagar, P.O .- Salt Lake, West Bengal who contested the case by filing Written Version (W.V.).

The brief fact of the case of the complainant as per her complaint is as follows- 

The complainant argued in her plaint that as per the provision of RBI Act the O.P.s are entitled to lend money to the people as lone in against the condition of repay the loan amount by weekly / monthly etc. installment for development of business and also other purposes. The Complainant & her husband jointly are owner of as small temporary tea shop at Dhupguri bazaar and the said tea stall is only source of income of the family of the complainant and the complainant approach the opposite Party no. 1 to give some amount as loan in the year 2019 to developed & renovate the said tea stall. After consideration the opposite parties agreed upon the request of the complainant and was disbursed an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- as loan with a condition that the complainant   will pay Rs. 1,375 weekly as EMI for the period of 104 installments. As per the terms and conditions the complainant started to pay weekly EMI from 10/07/2019 but the complainant without any fail in every week paid the installment amount till the month of February 2020.  Due to the nationalized lockdown for pandemic of Covid 19, the business of the complainant went into stake & she was fail into savior financial crunch. For that reason she could not continue her weekly EMI to the opposite party and after resumption of normal functioning on 29/04/2021 the complainant went to the opposite party no.1 for payment of her due EMI. After calculation the opposite party No.1 informed her that she have to pay Rs.9625 for regularized her weekly installments. As per the instruction of op.1 the complainant paid Rs.9625 on 19/04/2021 and the opposite party no. 1 made an entry to the passbook of the complainant & the made & endorsement “OD NIL on 29/04/2021”. After regularizing the weekly EMI, the complainant again started to pay the weekly EMI from 15/05/2021 and till 23/09/2021 the complainant paid total 87 EMI out of schedule 104 EMI as per the terms of her loan. After that, in the month of September 19, the complainant again requested the O.P.s to give her some amount for development of her business and on 22/09/2021 the O.P. No. 1 informed the complainant that an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- was sanctioned by the O.P. No. 1 . As per the direction of O.P. No. 1, the complainant on 23/09/2021 went to the bank for collecting her loan amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-but the complainant was very much surprised that the o.p. No.1 paid her only Rs 85,000/- in spite of her sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-. The complainant after receiving the same on the said occasion ask the O.P. No. 1 the reason of deduction of 40,000/- from her sanctioned  loan amount and the O.P. No. 1 replied that they were adjusted the outstanding the previous loan by deducting an amount of Rs. 40,000/- from the present loan amount. The complainant also mentioned that only Rs. 23,375/- (17 EMI@ Rs. 1,375) was lying outstanding in the previous loan of the complainant. The O.P. No 1 was only entitled to get Rs.23,375/- from the complainant in the previous loan amount. It is also necessary to mention here that the O.P. No. 1 deducted additional of Rs. 16,625/- and when the Complainant asked the O.P. No.1 the reason of deduction of Rs. 40,000/- in spite of Rs.23,375/-(approx. 17,000/- extra),the O.P. No. 1 did not pay any heed on her queries. Thereafter, the complainant in several occasion visited the office of O.P. No. 1 for accounts statement of her previous loan account , loan documents & also for No objection certificate (herein after called NOC)  of her previous loan account as because on 23/09/2021 the O.P. No.1 informed her that they adjusted the outstanding of her  previous loan by deducting amount from her present loan amount, i.e., Rs.1,25,000/- but it was unfortunate that neither O.P. No.1 nor any other officers of the bank gave either the account statements or the NOC of her previous loan to her. Having no other alternative, the complainant on 18/11/2022 made a written complain to the Assistant Director Consumer Affairs and FBP situated at administrative  building of District Magistrate Office , Jalpaiguri against the O.P.s  and praying for take  necessary steps against the O.P.s. As per the written complain of the complainant,  the office  of  the Assistant Director registered  a case and issued  notice  upon the  O.P.s  and the date on 28/09/2022 was  fixed  for mediation  and on 28/09/2022 the  O.P.s and complainant  were present  at the mediation but on the said date of mediation both the complainant & the O.P.s did not come into a conclusion. The Assistant Director directed to the O.P.s to submit relevant documents regarding the dispute of the complainant on next date of 10/11/2022. On 10/11/2022 both the parties were present before the Assistant Director to resolve the issue but the mediation was failed and the Assistant Director dropped the case. After that, the complainant sent a legal notice to O.P. No.1 but the O.P. No. 1 did not pay make any response in spite of receiving the same on 02/01/2023.  The complainant in several occasion requested the O.P.s for providing her the documents of her two loans and also the account statement of her previous loan but the O.P. No.1 did not give her the same. The O.P.s falsely submitted before the Assistant Director that they only deducted Rs. 33,747/- but actually they deducted Rs. 40,000/-.The O.P. illegally and with malicious intention took signature of the complainant in some documents and deducted sum of Rs. 40,000/-.  

The prayers of the complainant are as follows-

1. To pass an order directing the O.P.s to refund amount of Rs. 16, 725/- to the complainant along with 12 % interest per annum till the amount of payment.
2. To pass an order directing the O.P.s to provide the NOC of the loan, loan related documents and statement of account of loan Rs. 1, 20, 000/- to the complainant.
3. To pass an order directing the O.P.s to provide the loan related documents and statement of account of loan amount into Rs. 1, 25, 000/- to the complainant.
4. To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay damages of Rs. 50, 000/- for agony, shock and sufferance sustained by the complainant.
5. To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay Rs. 50, 000/- as cost of the litigation.
6. Any other and further order as your honour may think proper.

Total value of claim is amounting to Rs. 1, 16, 725/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Five) only.

         List of documents filed by the complainant:

1. Photocopy of relevant pages of passbook. (Annex- A, Page- 11)
2. Photocopy of relevant pages of passbook. (Annex- A1, Page- 12)
3. Photocopy of written complaint. (Annex- B, Page- 13)
4. Copy of order, dated 28.09.2022. (Annex- C, Page- 15)
5. Photocopy of insurance documents. (Annex- D, Page- 17)
6. Photocopy of the order, dated 28.09.2022. (Annex- E, Page- 21)
7. Photocopy of notice, dated 31.12.2022. (Annex- F, Page- 23)
8. Photocopy of postal receipt and acknowledgement. (Annex- G, Page- 27)
9. Photocopy of order. (Annex. P8, Page No. 57)

Regarding this instant case, the Opposite Party (O.P.) 1) The Branch Manager, The Bandhan Bank, Dhupguri Branch, Having its office atNetaji Road, Mill Para, Dhupguri, P.S & P.O. Dhupguri , Pin Code. 735210 and 2) The Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer, The Bandhan Bank, Having its office at Floor 12 to 14 Adventz Infinity@ 5 BN 5 . Sector V,Salt Lake City,  Kolkata. Pin – 700091. P.S – Bidhan Nagar, West Bengal. P.O.- Saltlake, who contested the case by filing Written Version (W.V.).

The brief fact of the case as per W.V. filed by the O.P. is as follows-

The O.P. being the financier had financed a sum of Rs. 1, 20, 000/- on 03/07/2019 which was to be payable in 104 equal monthly installments. The money financed by the O.P.s to the complainant was public money and was liable to repay the same in any condition. The complainant once again applied for a second loan of Rs. 1, 25, 000/- and the said loan is at present running NPA with the O.P. due to non-payment of EMI by the complainant. The deduction was made as because the complainant had been made aware that the first loan availed by the complainant had outstanding accrued dues which the complainant had failed to pay. The O.P.s had exercised its right of lien of guaranteed as per law. It is the duty of the O.P. bank to recover its bad debts since it is a matter of public money. The complainant had explained in detail about the deductions made by the O.P.s and the necessary documents were also provided to the complainant in respect of her query. The O.P.s did not deduct any additional amount as alleged by the complainant. The complainant was well aware about the insurance policy and the mediation failed due to non-cooperation from complainant’s end. All the necessary loan documents had been provided to the complainant by the O.P.s and no signatures of the complainant were taken on any documents by misleading the complainant.

The complainant had availed a previous loan of Rs. 1, 20, 000/- which was disbursed on 03/07/2019 for a weekly EMI of Rs. 1, 375/- and the borrower subsequently stopped paying EMI from 18/03/2020 till 15/07/2020. This non-payment of EMI accrued interest for which the complainant is liable to pay. The complainant started making her payments of loan. The complainant again approached the O.P. bank for another loan while her previous loan was running. At the time of disbursement, the O.P.s exercising its right of lien adjusted the previous outstanding amount and disbursed the remaining amount. The act was not any act of illegality or any deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice. This act of deduction was simply the right of the lien exercised by a banking authority totally as per law.        

List of documents filed by the O.P.s:

1. Copy of Account Statement of 2^nd Loan (Loan A/C No.- 52210057728807). (Annex.- A)      
2. Copy of Account Statement of 1^st Loan (Loan A/C No. - 52190044378604). (Annex.- B)
3. Copy of Account Statement of Savings Bank Account. (Annex.- C)

Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of the parties and on perusal of the Complaint and documents filed by the parties the following points are taken to be decided by this Commission.

 Points for consideration

1) Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2) Whether the case is maintainable under the CP act 2019?

3) Whether this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case? 

4) Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant?

5) Is the complainant is entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for? If so, what extent?           

Decision with reason:-

            All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision.

Seen and perused the complaint petition filed by the parties, supported by the affidavit, documents filed by the parties. We are also heard argument of both sides in full length.

The complainant resides in Dhupguri under Jalpaiguri district and the O.P. No.1 also carries its business in Dhupguri of Jalpaiguri district. So, this Commission does not hesitate to hold that the complainant is a very much consumer in this case and this Commission has its territorial jurisdiction to decide this case as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Regarding this instant case, the Opposite Party (O.P.) 1) The Branch Manager, The Bandhan Bank, Dhupguri Branch, Having its office atNetaji Road, Mill Para, Dhupguri, P.S & P.O. Dhupguri , Pin Code. 735210 and 2) The Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer, The Bandhan Bank, Having its office at Floor 12 to 14 Adventz Infinity@ 5 BN 5 . Sector V,Salt Lake City,  Kolkata. Pin – 700091. P.S – Bidhan Nagar, West Bengal. P.O.- Saltlake, who contested the case by filing Written Version (W.V.).

In this instant case, the Complainant & her husband jointly are the owner of as small temporary tea shop at Dhupguri bazaar and the said tea stall is only source of income of the family of the complainant and the complainant approach the O.P. No. 1 to give some amount as loan in the year 2019 to developed & renovate the said tea stall. The complainant took a loan from the O.P.s with an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- as loan with a condition that the complainant   will pay Rs. 1,375 weekly as EMI for the period of 104 installments. As per the terms and conditions the complainant started to pay weekly EMI from 10/07/2019. Hence, this Commission does not hesitate to hold that the complainant is a very much consumer in this case as per the C.P. Act, 2019.

In this case, the Complainant & her husband jointly are owner of as small temporary tea shop at Dhupguri bazaar and the said tea stall is only source of income of the family of the complainant and the complainant approach the opposite Party no. 1 to give some amount as loan in the year 2019 to developed & renovate the said tea stall. After consideration the opposite parties agreed upon the request of the complainant and was disbursed an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- as loan with a condition that the complainant   will pay Rs. 1,375 weekly as EMI for the period of 104 installments. As per the terms and conditions the complainant started to pay weekly EMI from 10/07/2019 but the complainant without any fail in every week paid the installment amount till the month of February 2020.  Due to the nationalized lockdown for pandemic of Covid 19, the business of the complainant went into stake & she was fail into savior financial crunch. For that reason she could not continue her weekly EMI to the opposite party and after resumption of normal functioning on 29/04/2021 the complainant went to the opposite party no.1 for payment of her due EMI. After calculation the opposite party No.1 informed her that she have to pay Rs.9625 for regularized her weekly installments. As per the instruction of O.P. No. 1 the complainant paid Rs.9625 on 19/04/2021 and the opposite party no. 1 made an entry to the passbook of the complainant & the made & endorsement “OD NIL on 29/04/2021”. After regularizing the weekly EMI, the complainant again started to pay the weekly EMI from 15/05/2021 and till 23/09/2021 the complainant paid total 87 EMI out of schedule 104 EMI as per the terms of her loan. After that, in the month of September 19, the complainant again requested the O.P.s to give her some amount for development of her business and on 22/09/2021 the O.P. No. 1 informed the complainant that an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- was sanctioned by the O.P. No. 1 . As per the direction of O.P. No. 1, the complainant on 23/09/2021 went to the bank for collecting her loan amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-but the complainant was very much surprised that the O.P. No.1 paid her only Rs 85,000/- in spite of her sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-. The complainant after receiving the same on the said occasion ask the O.P. No. 1 the reason of deduction of 40,000/- from her sanctioned  loan amount and the O.P. No. 1 replied that they were adjusted the outstanding the previous loan by deducting an amount of Rs. 40,000/- from the present loan amount. The complainant also mentioned that only Rs. 23,375/- (17 EMI@ Rs. 1,375) was lying outstanding in the previous loan of the complainant. The O.P. No 1 was only entitled to get Rs.23,375/- from the complainant in the previous loan amount. It is also necessary to mention here that the O.P. No. 1 deducted additional of Rs. 16,625/- and when the Complainant asked the O.P. No.1 the reason of deduction of Rs. 40,000/- in spite of Rs.23,375/-(approx. 17,000/- extra),the O.P. No. 1 did not pay any heed on her queries. Thereafter, the complainant in several occasion visited the office of O.P. No. 1 for accounts statement of her previous loan account , loan documents & also for No objection certificate of her previous loan account as because on 23/09/2021 the O.P. No.1 informed her that they adjusted the outstanding of her  previous loan by deducting amount from her present loan amount, i.e., Rs.1,25,000/- but it was unfortunate that neither O.P. No.1 nor any other officers of the bank gave either the account statements or the NOC of her previous loan to her. Having no other alternative, the complainant on 18/11/2022 made a written complain to the Assistant Director Consumer Affairs and FBP situated at administrative  building of District Magistrate Office , Jalpaiguri against the O.P.s  and praying for take  necessary steps against the O.P.s. As per the written complain of the complainant,  the office  of  the Assistant Director registered  a case and issued  notice  upon the  O.P.s  and the date on 28/09/2022 was  fixed  for mediation  and on 28/09/2022 the  O.P.s and complainant  were present  at the mediation but on the said date of mediation both the complainant & the O.P.s did not come into a conclusion. The Assistant Director directed to the O.P.s to submit relevant documents regarding the dispute of the complainant on next date of 10/11/2022. On 10/11/2022 both the parties were present before the Assistant Director to resolve the issue but the mediation was failed and the Assistant Director dropped the case. After that, the complainant sent a legal notice to O.P. No.1 but the O.P. No. 1 did not pay make any response in spite of receiving the same on 02/01/2023.  The complainant in several occasion requested the O.P.s for providing her the documents of her two loans and also the account statement of her previous loan but the O.P. No.1 did not give her the same. The O.P.s falsely submitted before the Assistant Director that they only deducted Rs. 33,747/- but actually they deducted Rs. 40,000/-.The O.P. illegally and with malicious intention took signature of the complainant in some documents and deducted sum of Rs. 40,000/-.

In support of his defense, the O.P.s submitted that being the financier the O.P.s had financed a sum of Rs. 1, 20, 000/- on 03/07/2019 which was to be payable in 104 equal monthly installments. The money financed by the O.P.s to the complainant was public money and was liable to repay the same in any condition. The complainant once again applied for a second loan of Rs. 1, 25, 000/- and the said loan is at present running NPA with the O.P. due to non-payment of EMI by the complainant. The deduction was made as because the complainant had been made aware that the first loan availed by the complainant had outstanding accrued dues which the complainant had failed to pay. The O.P.s had exercised its right of lien of guaranteed as per law. It is the duty of the O.P. bank to recover its bad debts since it is a matter of public money. The complainant had explained in detail about the deductions made by the O.P.s and the necessary documents were also provided to the complainant in respect of her query. The O.P.s did not deduct any additional amount as alleged by the complainant. The complainant was well aware about the insurance policy and the mediation failed due to non-cooperation from complainant’s end. All the necessary loan documents had been provided to the complainant by the O.P.s and no signatures of the complainant were taken on any documents by misleading the complainant.

The complainant had availed a previous loan of Rs. 1, 20, 000/- which was disbursed on 03/07/2019 for a weekly EMI of Rs. 1, 375/- and the borrower subsequently stopped paying EMI from 18/03/2020 till 15/07/2020. This non-payment of EMI accrued interest for which the complainant is liable to pay. The complainant started making her payments of loan. The complainant again approached the O.P. bank for another loan while her previous loan was running. At the time of disbursement, the O.P.s exercising its right of lien adjusted the previous outstanding amount and disbursed the remaining amount. The act was not any act of illegality or any deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice. This act of deduction was simply the right of the lien exercised by a banking authority totally as per law.    

In order to prove the case the complainant has filed its evidence in the form of an Affidavit and in the written complainant has specifically corroborated the complaint and has stated on which day she took the loan from the O.P.s, also narrated the EMI amount and the number of EMI paid to the O.P.s. The Complainant has also stated on which day she went to the O.P. No. 1 for getting her extra deducted amount, NOC of the loan, her loan related documents and statement of account. The Complainant has also stated in her evidence that the complainant went to meet the O.P.s several times but the O.P. did not make any payment till today.

At the time of argument Ld. Advocate of the Complainant submits that the Complainant has been able to prove its case against the O.P not only through her Written Deposition but also by producing documents.

In view of above discussion and other materials on record we are of the view that this Commission has sufficient Jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as a consumer dispute and thereby this case is maintainable.

In this case, it is clear from the evidence that the O.P. No.1 deducted the total amount of Rs. 40,000/- from the 2^nd sanctioned loan and it is also clear from the documents that the total outstanding amount of the complainant was Rs. 23,375/- and it is also a fact that the O.P. No.1 deducted a total extra amount of Rs. 16,725/- from the 2^nd loan/ further loan. The complainant claimed that it was an unauthorized deduction where as the O.P. No.1 claimed that it was an authorized deduction. In support of his claim the O.P.s submit that the conduct of the complainant in respect of payment of EMI was not good. Now the question arises if the conduct of the complainant was not good being in what basis the O.P. No.1 sanctioned the 2^nd loan/ further loan to the complainant. So, the argument of the O.P.s here not stands at all.

It is also not clear from the evidence of the O.P. No.1 that why they had deducted an extra amount from the 2^nd loan/ further loan and they have failed to give sufficient reason or satisfactory answer in this regard.

It is the basic principle that one loan account is always different from another loan account. In every loan account, a separate and individual procedure is maintained like separate account number, separate amount, separate sanctioned number and it is quite unjustified  to shift one’s account liability to another. If any default happened in a part of the customer then it is the duty of the bank to follow a legal procedure to recover their money.

So, this Commission holds that there is a deficiency in service from the part of the O.P. Bank and the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 16, 725/- from the O.P. Bank.          

Hence, it is, therefore,

ORDERED

That the Consumer Case No. 07/2023 be and same is allowed in contest against the O.P.s (The Bandhan Bank) with cost. In this case the O.P. is liable.                                  

   The O.P is directed to refund Rs. 16,725/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty five) only to the complainant’s Loan account within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to get simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this case, i.e., from16/02/2023 to till the realization of the entire amount. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 05, 000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only for mental pain and agony and harassment and Rs. 05, 000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only for litigation cost through an account payee cheque within 45 days from the date of this order. The O.P. is also directed to deposit Rs. 2, 000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only to the Legal Aid Account of this Commission, in default the complainant will be at liberty to execute the order as per law.

Let a copy of this judgment be given to the parties directly or through their representative Ld. Advocate for compliance free of cost.