Order No. 22 dt. 09/09/2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant obtained loan from o.p. no.2 and at the time of obtaining loan the complainant had understanding with o.ps. that after completion of the construction of the building o.p. bank would take possession of the 1st floor measuring 2800 sq.ft. The complainant as per oral agreement invested about Rs.20 lakhs for the entire 1st floor. After completion of the construction the complainant did not show any interest to take possession of the said premises for opening a branch there. The complainant further stated that in order to get electric connection the application was made by o.p. no.2 and the electric bill was issued in the name of o.p. no.2. As a result of such indifferent attitude of o.ps. the complainant had suffered financial loss and the o.ps. deliberately violated terms and conditions of the oral agreement.
In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above complainant filed the case praying for giving necessary direction upon o.ps. to give Rs.2 lakhs for compensation.
O.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant filed this case against the o.ps. with malafide intention. The o.p. no.2 denied that there was any oral agreement with complainant for taking possession of the premises constructed by complainant for the purpose of opening a branch there. The o.p. no.2 stated that there cannot be any oral contract and in case there was any object of the bank to open a branch in the said premises there ought to have been a written contract. The complainant by making a false allegation against the o.ps. filed this case since the complainant is a borrower of loan from the o.p. no.2 and since he failed to pay the bank loan the account has been transferred to ARMB Kolkata and suit has been filed before DRT II for recovery of money. The complainant in order to avoid the said liability filed this false case against the o.ps.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Is the complainant a consumer as per C.P. Act.
- Was there any contract between the parties for opening a branch in the said premises.
- Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
It is an admitted fact that the complainant took loan from o.p. no.2 for constructing a building. The complainant failed to pay the installment in respect of the said loan amount for which a case has been started against the complainant before DRT II for recovery of money. The complainant in order to avoid the said case falsely claimed that he got an assurance that the bank would take possession of the premises and thereafter
the bank would start a branch there, though the complainant claimed that there was an agreement to that effect but it is hardly believable that a nationalized bank will enter into an oral contract with an individual like the complainant for opening a branch in his premises, such plea has been adopted by the complainant to get rid of the suit filed against him by the bank for the non payment of the loan obtained by him.
From the materials on record it is hardly believable that how the complainant can claim himself to be a consumer as per the provision laid down in C.P. Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the complainant has falsely instituted this case against the o.ps. to stop them from realizing the amount which the o.ps. will be entitled to get from him. Considering all these aspects we hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.69/2013 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
