DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

      SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,

      AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144

                C.C. CASE NO. 100 OF 2018

DATE OF FILING: 05/09/2018                                DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 13/09/2019

Present                      :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                        Member         :   Jhunu Prasad                            

COMPLAINANT              : Abdul Gaffar Molla, S/O – Bakibilla Molla, Village : Jaynagar Station Road, Ward no. 6 of Jaynagar, Majilpur Municipality, P.O. - Jaynagar Majilpur, P.S. - Jaynagar, Dist. - South 24 Parganas.

• VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                         :  1. State Bank of India, Represented by Senior Manager Jaynagar Majilpur Branch, P.O. - Jaynagar Majilpur, P.S. – Jaynagar, Dist. – South 24 Parganas.

                                                2. Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Baruipur, Khash Mollick, P.O. – Dakshin Gobindapur, P.S. – Baruipur, Dist. – South 24 Parganas.              

_______________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President

            The nub of complaint case runs as follows.

            The complainant applied for an educational loan from the O.P. bank for admission in 2 years’ PGDM course in Indus Business Academy at Greater Noida, U.P. Loan was also sanctioned by O.P. 1 to the limit of Rs. 4,00,000/-. First and second installments of loan i.e. Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 1,25,000/- were also disbursed by the bank on 16.06.2013 and 13.12.2013 respectfully to the head of the institution in terms of the agreement concluded between the complainant and the bank. Dispute arose only on disbursement on the third installment amounting to Rs. 1,25,000/- on 16.07.2014. According to the complainant, this amount of third installment was not at all disbursed to him by the bank. Instead, the bank made a false entry fraudulently in his loan account to show as if the said amount had been paid to the institution on behalf of him i.e. the complainant. As the said amount of third installment was not paid to the institution by the bank, the complainant had to discontinue his study and he came back to his native village from U.P. Having returned from U.P., he met with O.P. 1 and told him that the said amount was not paid to his institution. He requested O.P. 1 to deduct the said amount from his loan account as the same was not paid to him. This request of the complainant fell on deaf ears of the O.P. 1 and therefore he brought the matter to the notice of Regional Manager of the bank i.e. O.P. 2. O.P. 2 scrutinized all the documents of the bank and thereafter directed O.P. 1 to deduct the said amount from loan account of the complainant. Accordingly, the loan account of the complainant was rectified and the said amount which was falsely entried in the account was also deleted from that account. Now it is alleged by the complainant that his future carrier has been lost due to fraudulent activity of O.P. 1; he has discontinued his study as O.P. 1 did not pay the third installment to the institute in accordance with the agreement. The loss suffered by him in his life cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money. He prays for a hefty compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- from the O.P. bank for loss of mental agony suffered by him. Hence, this case.

            The O.P. bank has been contesting the case by filing W/V wherein it is contended inter-alia that the case is barred by limitation and that there is no cause of action for bringing the case by the complainant. The positive case as made out in the written version is that an education loan to the limit of Rs. 4,00,000/- was sanctioned by the bank in favour of the complainant. Two installments of the loan amounting Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 1,25,000/- were also disbursed by the bank on 16.06.2013 and 13.12.2013. On 16.07.2014 a demand draft of Rs. 1,25,000/- was handed over to the complainant himself as third installment of the loan and the complainant signed the acknowledgement, having received the said demand draft. Complainant discontinued his study and the reason is best known to him. On 20.12.2014, he wrote a letter to O.P. 1 requesting him to accept the return of demand draft dated 16.07.2014 which was handed over to him for payment of Rs. 1,25,000/- to his institute. O.P. 1 did not accept the return of the said demand draft and thereafter the same was accepted under the instruction of O.P. 2 i.e. the Regional Manager of the bank. According to the O.P.s, the allegation of a false entry being made in the loan account of the complainant is nothing but a figment of imagination. Loan amount has now fallen outstanding and notice for recovery of the loan has been issued to the complainant. The complaint is frivolous and vexatious and is filed with ulterior motive of the complainant. The complaint should therefore be dismissed in limini with cost.

            Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.

                                                POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Is the case barred by the limitation?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. bank as alleged by the complainant?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?

  EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES    

Evidence on affidavit is led on behalf of the complainant as well as O.P.s. BNA is filed on behalf of the O.P. bank only and the same is kept in record after consideration.

                                       DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no. 1, 2 & 3 :

            Already heard the submissions advanced by Ld. Lawyers appearing for the O.P. bank. Perused the petition of complaint, W/V. and also a document filed on record by the parties.

The allegation of the complainant is against the bank and the allegation appears to be a culpable one. It is the allegation of the complainant against O.P. 1 that he i.e. O.P. 1 made a false entry in the loan account of the complainant as if to show that the third installment of loan i.e. Rs. 1,25,000/- was disbursed to the complainant, without disbursing the said amount to the complainant. On the other hand, the version of O.P. 1 is that the said amount was disbursed in demand draft on 16.07.2014 and the complainant himself received the said demand draft by making an acknowledgement thereof on the copy of the demand draft. It is however the version of O.P. 1 that the complainant submitted a petition before the bank on 20.12.2014 and in that petition he requested O.P. 1 to accept return of the demand draft, as he had left the institute having discontinued his study. In the face of allegation of the complainant as referred to above, it is to be seen now how much grain of truth is there in the allegation of the complainant. A copy of letter, vide no. BM/7/153 dated 16.07.2014 is filed on record by O.P. 1 and it reveals that O.P. 1 handed over a draft being no. 750977 dated 16.07.2014 for Rs. 1,25,000/- as third semester fees to the complainant. The letter is addressed to “INDUS BUSINESS ACADEMY” that is, the very institute of the complainant. The draft was received by the complainant and the copy of this letter also bears the signature of the complainant below the acknowledgment receipt. This letter and acknowledgement of the complainant have not been disputed by the complainant and regard being had to this aspect of the document we feel not a least hesitation to say that the complainant received a draft of O.P. 1 for payment of third semester fees to his institute. This being so, we cannot say that O.P. made a false entry in the loan account of the complainant to the effect that Rs. 1,25,000/- was paid to him i.e. the complainant. Payment by demand draft to the complainant is on the same footing as payment of cash to the complainant. The payment was actually made to the complainant by O.P. 1 bank and there was nothing wrong with O.P. 1 in making the entry of disbursed money in the loan account of the complainant. The allegation of the complainant is that O.P. 1 fraudulently made a false entry in his loan account without disbursing the amount to him appears to be nothing but a cock and bull story orchestrated with an ulterior motive.

            That the allegation of the complainant does not have any substance is also established, if the application dated 20.12.2014 made by the complainant to O.P. 1 is once taken into account. The perusal of the copy of that application, which is filed on record by O.P. 1, reveals that the said draft was accepted by the complainant and the complainant wanted to return the draft to O.P. 1 bank for the reason that he had left the institute. There is no whisper in that petition of the complainant that O.P. 1 bank fraudulently entered the draft money in the loan account without issuing demand draft in favour of the complainant. The said application of the complainant is completely silent in the matter of allegation of complainant. Why? It is for the reason that the allegation as brought by the complainant at present against O.P. 1 bank is a got-up one for the purpose of this case. The said application of the complainant himself goes a long way to falsify the allegation of the complainant against O.P. 1 bank. Regard being had to all these facts and circumstances, we feel constrained to say that the allegation of the complainant is absolutely baseless. It is frivolous, fictitious and vexatious allegation brought by the complainant against the O.P. bank with some ulterior motive best known to the complainant. The complaint should therefore be dismissed with heavy cost against the complainant.

            Now about the period of limitation. The complainant filed application before O.P. 1 bank on 20.12.2014 and thereby prayed before the bank for acceptance of return of demand draft to him by the bank on 16.07.2014. O.P. 1 refused to accept the return of that demand draft and it is so stated by the complainant in his petition of complaint. If this be so, the cause of action of the instant case arose on 20.12.2014. The instant case is filed by the complainant on 05.09.2018 i.e. about 4 years after the cause of action arose in this case. Regard being had to this aspect, we do say that the complaint is barred by limitation and as such it is not maintainable in law. No petition praying for condonation of such delay is filed by the complainant in the instant case and therefore the question of condonation of delay in filing the case does never arise.

            Upon what have been discussed above, it is found that an unfounded allegation is leveled against the O.P. bank by the complainant to malign the reputation of a nationalized bank. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. bank. The O.P. bank issued the demand draft of Rs. 1,25,000/-  as third installment fees of the complainant and made the correct entry about the said money in the loan account of the complainant. Such entry was proper and such entry can never be characterized as deficiency in service. Rather, the instant case appears to be frivolous and vexatious and therefore the complainant will have to pay compensation to the O.P. bank for subjecting the bank to unnecessary harassment and loss of reputation.

            In the result, the case fails.

            Hence,

 ORDERED

            That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against O.P.s, but with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the O.P. company by the complainant.

Register-in-charge is directed to supply a free certified copy of this judgment at once to the parties concerned.

I/We agree                                                               Member                                President

                        Directed and corrected by me

                                                               President