DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _387_ OF ___2015_
DATE OF FILING :26.8.2015 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 18.09.2017
Present : President : Udayan Mukhopadhyay
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Kanai Palit, 214/3/20, S.K Dev Road, Kolkata – 48.
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Manager, Jadavpur Branch, Syndicate Bank, 3, Central Road, Kolkata – 32.
2. Regional manager, Controlling Office, Syndicate Bank, 651, Anandpur
______________________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President
This is an application under section 12 of the C.P Act 1986 filed by complainant on the ground that complainant took loan amounting to Rs.50,000/- on 10.09.2002 from Jadavpur Branch of syndicate bank situated and located at 3, Central Road, Kolkata – 32 , loan bearing no.DL/GEN-2002/006 as demand loan. He has claimed that although this type of loan (Demand Loan) does not require any security but as being advised by the said bank he deposited his N.S.C amounting to Rs.5000/- as face value, and Life policy of LIC of India in the name of Sri Kalyan Kumar Palit being Policy no. 415226201 issued by branch 16 of LICI under KMDO-I situated and located at 4, C.R Avenue, Kolkata – 72. He has claimed that he cleared the loan amount including interest within 14.10.2014 but bank reported that Arup Ganguly had not cleared his dues to the bank, although said LIC policy and NSC were not endorsed by Kalyan Kumar Palit. A notice was sent to the O.P Bank enclosing repayment certificate confirmed by the said branch with a request to refund the security as early as possible and thereafter he has informed to the Reserve Bank of India for its intervention and on making enquiry after receipt of the written complaint Banking Ombudsman for West Bengal and Sikkim passed an order on 25.11.2014 directing the said bank to make good the amount of NSC and LIC Policy with applicable rate of interest to complainant and inspite of that bank did not care to comply the same. Hence, this case praying for refund of the amount paid by the complainant to the tune of Rs.35000/- along with policy documents, compensation Rs.50,000/- and cost
Rs. 10,00/-.
The O.P foiled written version and has denied all the allegations and prayed for dismissal o the case on the ground of limitation under section 24A of the C.P Act, 1986. It has claimed that complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hand by suppressing material facts. So, complainant is devoid of any access . It has claimed that there is no negligence or deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P in any manner whatsoever. It has claimed that on or about 10.9.2002complainant availed a Demand Loan of Rs.50,000/- bearing no.DL/GEN-2002/006 and the said loan was closed upo0n receipt of the loan amount on 14.10.2003. . Accordingly letter of confirming “No Dues” in the account was issued on 14.06.2004 by the Bank. After a lapse of nearly 11 years from 14.10.2003 till 16.4.2014 the O.Ps were in receipt of a letter issued by the complainant claiming that he had deposited his NSC certificate purchased from Lalbazar Post Officer from 1998 to 2000 and other securities at the time of taking loan as aforesaid. It is the further contention of the O.Ps that they informed the concerned post office in writing dated 10.7.2014 and in response thereto, the concerned Post office informed in writing dated 23.8.2014 that save and except NSC no.273064 registered no.2828 for Rs.1000/- none of the certificates were issued form the post office and the same is not pledged with any bank. The copies of letters are annexed respectively. So, from the letter issued by the post office it is evident that the alleged NSC were pledged on 8.7.2004 and released on 9.1.2006 much after the loan of the complainant was closed and payment was made to the holder on 10.1.2006. Moreover, NSCs were not pledged with the O.P bank and most certainly not for the loan taken on 10.9.2002 and as such the claim of the complainant was baseless , frivolous in nature. It has claimed that O.P was served with a notice from the Banking Ombudsman in respect of a complaint file dbyt eh complainant alleging non-return of the alleged NSC and Insurance Policy. It has claimed that loan referred to i.e DL/GEN/2002/06 is a clean advance without any security being taken. It has also claimed that O.Ps were served with an award passed by the Ld. Ombudsman to make good the amount of NSC and LIC along with applicable rate of interest to the complainant. A copy of which is annexed herewith. Hence, the O.P prays for dismissal of the case.
Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P or not.
Decision with reasons
Admittedly the loan account of Kanai Palit has already been closed on 14.10.2003 vide letter dated 14.6.2004 and after more than 11 years complainant woke up and sent a letter to the bank for refund of NSC and other amounts.
The limitation application filed by the O.P has already been disposed of by this Bench on 7.1.2016 vide order no.6. So, that point cannot be adjudicated, particularly when the O.P has not challenged the order before the Hon’ble State Commission and that order has already been affirmed after the lapse of limitation for filing appeal.
We have perused the letter of department of Post which has been relied by the O.P but the question is, if no security was taken what prompted the O.P to enquire the matter with the post office. This conduct clearly shows that O.P bank accepted the security from the complainant although it was not required in a Demand Loan.
Be that as it may, it is an order of the Banking Ombudsman wherein we find that Ombudsman after hearing passed an award i.e directing the O.P to make good the amount of NSC and LIC along with applicable rate of interest to the complainant. This award passed by the Banking Ombudsman for West Bengal and Sikkim clearly stopped the O.P bank to speak anything save and except to follow the order of Ombudsman.
Accordingly , we also direct the O.P Bank to make good the amount of NSC and LIC along with applicable rate of interest of the complainant. But complainant has claimed Rs.35000/-. But we failed to understand why complainant wanted refund of the said amount, may be it is a policy amount. But we are unable to pass any order to that effect specifically for refund of specific amount since we are not satisfied regarding the amount of policy or its bonus which will be payable by the LIC authority.
So, at this stage complainant will only get the Award passed by the Banking Ombudsman along with cost and compensation.
With that observation, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case is allowed on contest.
The O.P Bank is directed to hand over the NSC and LIC amounts along with applicable rate of interest as directed by the Banking Ombudsman for West Bengal and Sikkim along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 2000/- to the complainant within 45 days form the date of this order, failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.
Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.
Member Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
President
The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
Ordered
That the complaint case is allowed on contest.
The O.P Bank is directed to hand over the NSC and LIC amounts along with applicable rate of interest as directed by the Banking Ombudsman for West Bengal and Sikkim along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 2000/- to the complainant within 45 days form the date of this order, failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.
Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.
Member Member President
