State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India Ferozepur City ... vs Pawan Kumar Sharma S/O Sat Pal Sharma R/O ... on 7 November, 2013
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 220 of 2010
Date of institution: 15.02.2010
Date of Decision : 07.11.2013
State Bank of India Ferozepur City Branch near Mochi Bazar Ferozepur
City.
.....Appellant/O.Ps
Versus
Pawan Kumar Sharma S/o Sat Pal Sharma r/o Mohalla Budhwaran Wala
H. No. 17/10 Gali Mandirwali Ferozepur City.
.....Respondents/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
11.01.2010 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Argued By:-
For the appellant : None
For the respondent : Sh. N.K. Manchanda, Advocate
JASBIR SINGH GILL (MEMBER)
The appellant/O.P has filed the present appeal against the order dated 11.01.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (hereinafter called "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No. 331 of 22.07.2009 vide which the complaint was partly allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had joined the service with O.Ps on 19.12.1977 and got retirement on 30.06.2007 under Exit policy of the Bank. During his services, he got house loans from the O.Ps bearing No. 10747459664, 10747460341 and 10747460352. As per First Appeal No. 220 of 2010 2 eject policy, the other loans were to be adjusted at the time of retirement but the house loan was not to be adjusted and the repayment of loan in instalments was to be deducted from the pension. But the opposite parties have wrongly and illegally adjusted the loan amount towards the PF and gratuity etc, which is against the terms and conditions of the policy and is against the law. Further, the amount of Rs. 25740/- was deducted by the opposite parties from the loan account on account of insurance vide Draft No. 344477 dated 15.06.2004 but after liquidation an amount of Rs. 10689/- was repaid to the complainant. It is further pleaded that due to illegal deduction of loan amount from the PF and Gratuity, the complainant had to take loan from LIC in January 2008 where the complainant has to pay interest at excessive rate. Monthly instalment also increased from Rs. 4700/- to Rs. 6000/- whereas the loan obtained from LIC is lesser than the loan obtained from the O.Ps during his tenure of service with the O.Ps. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complaint filed the complaint with the prayer that the O.Ps be directed to release the amount so deducted from PF and gratuity etc of the complainant and to deduct instalment of loan amount from the pension of the complainant, to revise the insurance scheme, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as mental and physical harassment, and an amount of Rs. 11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, reply was filed by the O.P. taking preliminary objections that the complaint in present form is not maintainable. The complainant neither disclose any consumer dispute nor the complainant has ever hired any services of the opposite parties for consideration nor any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P is spelt out from the averments made in the complaint. On merits, the O.P has rightly and legally adjusted the loan amount recoverable from the complainant out of First Appeal No. 220 of 2010 3 his retirement benefits as per the terms and conditions contained in the various loan documents executed by the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Parties were allowed by the District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith documents Ex. C-2 and Ex. C- 3 letter dated 06.07.2007, Ex. C-4 NOC and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, the O.Ps tendered into evidence affidavit of Sanjay Malhotra, Ex. R-1, Ex. R-2 to Ex. R-4 Bank statements, Ex. R-5 letter dated 10.07.2007, Ex. R-6 letters (Colly), Ex. R-7 letter dated 06.06.2007, Ex. R-8 calculation sheet of provident fund, Ex R-8, Ex. R-9 affidavit of Shri Jai Shankar Sharma, Ex. R-10 letter dated 05.09.1994, Ex. R-11 affidavit, Ex. R-12 letter dated 01.02.2002, Ex. R-13 and Ex. R-14 housing loan scheme and closed the evidence.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint and evidence on the record, the learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint and the O.Ps were directed to make the payment of the house loan amount adjusted from the retiral benefits of the complainant, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum to the complainant on furnishing of title deed/security documents, if any, got returned back by the complainant from the opposite parties which is necessary to continue the house loan advances as per terms and conditions of the Bank.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/O.P filed the present appeal on the grounds that the complaint was barred by limitation, that complainant was duly informed of deductions on 06.07.2007 and the present complaint was filed on 22.07.2009 beyond two years. It is further stated that the learned District First Appeal No. 220 of 2010 4 Forum committed great illegality in assuming the jurisdiction as the dispute raised related to the service condition of an employee. Respondent was an ex-employee of the appellant bank and sought voluntary retirement as per option exercised vide request dated 14.03.2007. Appellant bank accepted the same and released the terminal dues alongwith ex-gratia payable after deducting the loan as per mandate given by the employee. Any dispute outside the purview of consumer protection is not maintainable and should have been declined. It is further stated that there was no relationship of consumer between the appellant and the respondent as an employee was granted loan under the staff welfare scheme at a concessional rate of interest and no changes are levied on the employee for sanctioning of loan. An employee does not fall within the definition of consumer to invoke the provision of Consumer Protection Act.
8. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, grounds of appeal, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the counsel for the respondent.
9. It is not disputed that the complainant got home loans from the bank bearing No. 10747459664, 10747460341 and 10747460352. The dispute is only that as per the exit policy, the other loans were to be adjusted at the time of the retirement, but the house loan was not to be adjusted at the time of retirement and the payments were to be deducted from the pension. But the O.Ps have wrongly deducted the amount from the provident fund and gratuity.
10. We have perused the agreement. It is mentioned in this agreement at Para No. 5 that notwithstanding the facility to repay the Loan amount in equated 240 monthly instalments as stated in (iv) above, in the event of respondent of ceasing to be in the Bank's service by retirement, termination of service, resignation or death prior to the date of expiry of the First Appeal No. 220 of 2010 5 said 240 months, the entire outstandings remaining due at the time of such retirement, termination of service, resignation or death shall become payable to you forthwith, subject, however, to the Bank in its absolute discretion, permitting us/in the event of death of No. 1 of us, No. 2 of us and the other legal heirs of No. 1 of us to continue repayment in instalments on their providing sufficient security therefor and complying with the conditions which the bank may then stipulate.
11. O.P. No. 1 has rightly and legally adjusted the loan amount recoverable from the complainant out of his retirement benefits as per terms and conditions of the Exit Option Scheme. O.P. No. 1 was well within his right to adjust the loan amount lying outside in the house loan account in the name of complainant at the time of his retirement and there is no illegality on the part of the O.P as per the terms and conditions of the scheme. However house loan account at the time of his retirement was to continue and was not to recover the amount lying outstanding in the house loan account in the name of the complainant from the amount of provident fund and other retirement benefits payable to the complainant. Reference can be made to Exit Option Scheme Ex. R-16 Para 13 (ii) which reads as under:-
"Repayment of housing loan beyond the date of release from service under exit option shall be permitted. All other outstanding loans/advances will have to be repaid before effective date of retirement under the Exit Option failing which the amount of ex-gratia and other terminal benefit payable to the employee will be appropriated towards the outstanding loans/advances and only the balance amount will be payable to the employee. Employee, whose outstanding loans are higher than the total terminal dues payable to him/her and if First Appeal No. 220 of 2010 6 the employee is not in a position to close the loan accounts himself from his/her own resources then he/she will not be considered under the Exit Option Scheme."
13 The perusal will reveal that repayment of housing loan beyond the date of release from services has been permitted. There is an affidavit Ex. R-9 filed by Sh. Jai Shankar Sharma, Manager, PBD, Ferozepur City of SBI Branch in which he has stated that the complainant never sought permission of the bank for repayment of outstanding amount in the above said housing loan account beyond the date of release from the service under the Exit Option Scheme. However in case we go through the scheme, there is no reference that option is to be exercised by the employee under the said policy even if it was so required, no notice has been issued by the O.Ps before deducting the entire outstanding housing loan amount from the pensionery benefits of the complainant. Therefore under that policy, the O.Ps were not entitled to recover the outstanding housing loan amount in from the pensionery benefits of the complainant without his option.
14. The point has also been raised that the complaint is beyond the limitation because the respondent was released from service on 30.06.2007 and that the intimation was given to him vide letter dated 06.07.2007 whereas the complaint has been filed on 22.07.2009 which is beyond limitation period of two years. However in case, we go through the letter which has been placed on record as Ex. C-2 it does not refer about the recovery of the housing loan amount rather there is another letter dated 25.08.2007 vide which his housing loan was liquidated, therefore two years are to be taken from 25.08.2007 whereas the complaint has been filed on 22.07.2009 which is quite within two years as provided u/s 24-A of the Act and is within limitation.
First Appeal No. 220 of 2010 7
15. Another point raised by the counsel for the appellant is that it was a service matter i.e. service benefits pension extended to the respondent, therefore Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is not only with regard to the service benefits but the house loan facility which was granted to the respondent upon which the appellant is charging interest and at the time of release from service of the respondent, the entire house loan was adjusted from his pensionery benefits which is against the policy of the appellant. House loan is service and in case there is deficiency in any service certainly Consumer Fora has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, therefore we do not agree with the proposition raised by the counsel for the appellant that the Consumer Fora does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
16. No other point has been raised before us.
17. We find that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
18. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 29.10.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
19. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member November 07 , 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill) RK Member First Appeal No. 220 of 2010 8