State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager, United Bank Of India vs Smt. Sujata Dolui on 18 August, 2015
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/1327/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 11/04/2014 in Case No. CC/346/2013 of District Howrah) 1. The Manager, United Bank of India Shanpur Branch, Makardah Road, P.O. - Dasnagar, Dist. - Howrah, Pin - 711 105. 2. The Chairman, United Bank of India 11, Hemantabasu Sarani, 6th Floor, United Tower House, Kolkata - 700 001. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Smt. Sujata Dolui W/o Sri Avijit Dolui, Kona Daspara Aswathatalagali, P.O. Kona, P.S. Liluah, Dist. Howrah, Pin - 711 114. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. D. Bhandari , Advocate For the Respondent: Ms. Moumita Dutta, Advocate ORDER
Date of hearing : 7th August, 2015 Date of judgment : Tuesday, the 18thh day of August, 2015.
JUDGMENT The instant appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is at the instance of the opposite parties to impeach the final order dated 11.4.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah (in short 'DCDRF') in consumer complaint No.346 of 2013 wherein and whereby the complainant initiated by the respondent under section 12 of the Act was allowed on contest with costs.
The respondent herein being complainant initiated the complaint on the allegation that she applied for a house building loan amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- before United Bank of India, Saharanpur Branch, Dist. Howrah and submitted necessary documents before the opposite party No.1. The O.P. No.1 disbursed the amount in 3 instalments on 16.11.2011, 3011.2011 and 13.1.2012 with an EMI of Rs.5500/- commencing from February, 2013. At the time of disbursement of the amount, the petitioner offered 2 LIC policies as collateral security of the aforesaid loan besides landed property at Kona as mortgage. The complainant alleges that she was going on paying Rs.6300/- instead of Rs.5500/- through her EMI but the OP No.1 has added vetting charges, short premium, etc. with the principal amount and also in spite of proper securities, arbitrarily compelled her to take Tata AIG Policy. Hence, the complaint with a prayer for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- for mental harassment, totalling to Rs2,00,000/- with interest.
The OP by filing written version has denied the material allegations contending inter alia that the petitioner is a well educated person and she knows everything about the terms and conditions of said loan and the petitioner has consented in borrowing the Tata AIG policy.
Relying upon the petition of complaint, written version and the evidence - oral as well as documentary and after hearing the parties the Ld. DCDRF allowed the consumer complaint on contest with costs directing the complainant to submit the account by clubbing before the O.P./Bank within 15 days from date which prompted the OP to prefer this appeal.
The point arises for consideration in this appeal as to whether or not the Ld. DCDRF was right in passing the order impugned.
It remains undisputed that the petitioner Smt. Sujata Dolui had applied for a house building loan amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- being loan No.UHL 0917306506746 in connection with S.B. A/c. No.0917010124614 before the United Bank of India, Saharanpur Branch on 21.10.11. On 15.11.2011, the said amount of loan was sanctioned with a stipulation that it will carry an interest at a fixed rate of 11.10% p.a. and the sum would be payable in 240 EMI's of Rs.5500/- each commencing from February, 2012. The sanction letter indicates that the petitioner kept landed property as equitable mortgage. As additional security, 2 LIC policies have also been assigned. The husband of the petitioner stood as guarantor for the said loan. It also appears repayment would be made by instalments. The statement of accounts indicates that the petitioner was going on paying instalments of Rs.6300/- per month instead of Rs.5500/- per month. We are at a loss to understand under what terms and conditions the agreement with regard to payment of EMI of Rs.5500/- per month has been enhanced to Rs.6300/- per month.
The statement of account also indicate that the same amount relating to vetting charges, insurance premium, short premium, penal interest were imposed in the loan account which should not have been done without concurrence of the borrower because the borrower was going on paying the EMI's more than the required amount and as such the action on the part of the Bank was quite arbitrary in nature. Moreover, the Bank officials had no occasion to ask petitioner to go for Tata AIG policy when she has already kept two LIC Policies along with landed properties as collateral securities.
The miserable conduct of the Bank would be quite apparent from the fact that they did not sanction the loan amount at a time and disbursed it in 3 phases on 16.11.2011, 30.11.2011 and 13.1.2012 only to keep the petitioner under threat of cancellation of sanctioning of loan. The Ld. DCDRF has rightly observed - "The bargain adopted by the O.P. Bank is really innovative either you place your head in the guillotine of famous Insurance Companies with whom the OP Bank has business tie up or be ready for close shutter of the Bank counter that means to loan."
The Bank officials must borne in mind that the objective behind nationalisation of Bank to provide remedy to the common people from the clutches of Mahajans or money-lenders but this kind of conduct clearly demonstrates that the 'Mahajani' system prevailing in the mediaeval period but it is still in existence in a sophisticated manner which in turn clearly indicates a glaring example of deficiency on the part of the service provider to a consumer i.e. the petitioner of the case.
In that perspective, the Ld. DCDRF was quite justified in allowing the complaint case with a direction upon the O.P. No.1 to refund the amount arbitrarily clubbed with the principal loan amount to the complainant.
On the part of the appellant Bank it has been submitted that the amount was arbitrarily clubbed with the principal amount having not been categorically stated by the Ld. DCDRF and the complainant has also not submitted the statement of such clubbing in accordance with the order that they are unable to comply with the same. What we find from the statement that the OP's /Bank has deducted from the loan account of the petitioner - (1) vetting charges dated 7.2.2014 of Rs.700/- (2) Insurance premium dated 14.2.2012 of Rs.9523; (3) short premium dated 16.3.2014; (4) penal interest of Rs.245/- in every month and (5) interest charge within moratorium period amounting to Rs.909/-, Rs.3657/- Rs.2085/- and Rs.2750/- on different dates and further an amount of Rs.10,300/- was debited in savings account on 16.11.2011. Therefore, the complainant/respondent is entitled to an amount aggregating Rs.30,911/-.
Therefore, the appellants are liable to pay Rs.30,911/- together with the litigation cost of Rs.5000/- imposed by the Ld. DCDRF.
For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the appeal and as such it deserves dismissal.
In the result, the instant appeal is dismissed on contest. However, we do not make any order as to costs in this appeal.
The final order dated 11.04.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah, in consumer complaint No.346 of 2013 is hereby affirmed.
The appellants are directed to make payment of Rs.30,911/- together with interest thereon accrued from the respective dates with the agreed rate of interest at 11.10% per annum from the respective dates of debit and also the cost of litigation of Rs.5000/- imposed by the Ld. DCDRF positively within one month from the date otherwise the respondent shall have liberty to execute the same in accordance relevant provisions of the Act.
[HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY] MEMBER