State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Senior Branch Manager, United Bank ... vs Smt. Malu Sherpa on 20 August, 2015
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/1105/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 20/08/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/18/2014 of District Darjiling) 1. The Senior Branch Manager, United Bank of India Darjeeling Branch, 25, H.D. Lama Road, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Darjeeling, Pin-734 101. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Smt. Malu Sherpa W/o Shri Phurba Sherpa, 1, H.D. Lama Road, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Darjeeling, Pin-734 101. ...........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: Mr. Bibhas Mondal, Advocate ORDER Date of hearing : 12-8-2015 Date of Judgment : Thursday, the 20th day of August, 2015 J U D G M E N T
The instant appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is at the instance of the opposite party to impeach the judgment dated 20-8-2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Darjeeling (in short 'DCDRF') in consumer complaint No.18 of 2014.
The respondent herein being complainant initiated a complaint u/s 12 of the Act alleging that she along with her cousin Dr. Munna Sherpa availed a house building loan from United Bank of India, Darjeeling Branch on 8-6-2005 amounting to Rs.18,00,000/- only on a fixed rate of interest at 9.25% p.a. It has been alleged that the said house building loan account was closed on 08-12-2011 with final repayment. But, it has been noticed that the said Bank had overcharged interest amounting to Rs.2,40,791/- from 9.6.2005 to 8.12.2011. Therefore, the complaint was allowed with the following prayers viz. - (a) refund of interest overcharged of Rs.2,40,791/-; (b) excess recovery of repayment by opposite party amount to Rs.2,10,941/-; (c) interest @ 8% p.a. amounting to Rs.4,61,815/-; (d) compensation towards harassment and mental torture to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and (e) damages of Rs.50,000/-.
The opposite party i.e., the Senior Branch Manager of United Bank of India, Darjeeling Branch by filing a written version admitted that a sum of Rs.1,26,566/- was paid by the complainant in excess due to some wrong entry while uploading the loan account in the computer system. On 19.12.2013 the complainant returned the excess amount to the complainant but she refused to accept the same. It has been stated that there was no negligence or deficiency on the part of Bank officials and as such the case should be dismissed.
Relying upon the materials on record and having heard the Ld. Advocate for the respective parties, Ld. DCDRF by the impugned judgment allowed the consumer complaint in part on contest with costs directing the opposite party to refund Rs.1,76,430/- along with interest thereon @ 8% p. a. calculated with effect from 8-12-2011 till realization, a compensation of Rs.20,000/-, litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- and further a direction to deposit Rs.5,000/- towards State Consumer Welfare Fund. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, opposite party has come up in this Commission with this appeal.
The point arises for consideration in this appeal as to whether or not the Ld. DCDRF was justified in passing the order impugned.
On scrutiny of the materials placed before us and having heard the Ld. Advocate for the respective parties it emerges that the respondent herein along with her cousin Dr. Munna Sherpa had applied for a house building loan to United Bank of India, Darjeeling branch. The United Bank of India, Darjeeling Branch on 18.6.2005 sanctioned the said loan amounting to Rs.18,00,000/- on a fixed rate of interest @ 9.25% p.a. It is also not in dispute that the respondent and her said cousin has paid the entire amount of loan and as such the account was closed on 08-12-2011 with final repayment.
Now, an allegation of overcharge of interest on the above house building loan account since 9.6.2005 to 8.12.2011 has been levelled by the respondent. According to the complainant/respondent the Bank has overcharged interest amounting to Rs.2,40,791/-. On the contrary, the Bank authority could not refute the contention of the complainant but has submitted that as per calculation they are liable to refund a sum of Rs.1,26,566/=. The facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicate that the appellant had accepted their fault in overcharging interest and the statement of account submitted by the Bank indicates such conclusion. Therefore, there is hardly any dispute that being a customer of the Bank the respondent did not get proper service as required u/s 2(1)(o) of the Act being a consumer in accordance with section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
In order to ascertain the actual overcharge interest the Ld. DCDRF has calculated debit column showing the amount of interest charged on different rate on the loan account of the complainant and after calculation it could be noticed that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.8,86,037/- towards interest only. Basing upon reconstruction of ledger of the complainant filed on behalf of the appellant/opposite party, the Ld. DCDRF has noticed that the total interest payable by the complainant was Rs.7,09,606.82p. Therefore, after deducting the amount of interest already deducted and the amount of interest was liable to pay by the respondent to the Bank it becomes crystal clear that the respondent has paid an excess amount of Rs.1,76,430.18p. as interest. Therefore, the Bank official cannot absolve their liability when from the document of the Bank itself such a figure has been arrived at.
Ld. Advocate for the appellant has contended that due to technical problems such a defect has arisen after the emergence of core banking service, could not inspire us at all. In fact, the Bank authority did not bring it to the notice of the complainant and they intended to return the amount when it came on the surface on the basis of the allegation of the complainant.
The stand taken by the appellant that the amount of loan was sanctioned for purchase of a residential flat at H.D. Lama Road, Darjeeling but the same was used as a clinic which is commercial in nature cannot be entertained at this belated stage. The appellant did not disclose when it came to the notice of the Bank officials that after obtaining loan the complainant without purchase of flat for residential purpose converted the same for commercial purpose. In other words, there is no document to that effect. The Bank officials themselves are responsible for not taking proper action against converting of House Buildingloan for commercial purpose as alleged.
In that view of the matter we have no hesitation to hold that there was clear deficiency in service on the part of the United Bank of India, Darjeeling Branch and being Senior Branch Manager, the appellant/opposite party cannot absolve his liability to compensate the complainant of the case for deficiency in service, etc. Therefore, the appeal being meritless deserves dismissal. However, taking into consideration of the fact that the money of the Bank is tax-payers' money, we do not impose any order as to costs in this appeal.
Consequently, appeal is dismissed on contest. There will be, however, no order as to costs in this appeal.
The judgment dated 20.8.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Darjeeling in consumer complaint No.18 of 2014 is hereby affirmed.
The appellant is directed to make payment of the compensation in accordance with the direction of Ld. DCDRF, Darjeeling positively within one month from date failing which the respondent shall have liberty to execute the same in accordance with law.
The interim order, as passed hereinbefore, stands vacated. [HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY] MEMBER