West Bengal

Kolkata-II(Central)

CC/314/2013

SUPRIYO MUKHERJEE - Complainant(s)

Versus

BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

PRASANTA BANERJEE

05 Feb 2014

ORDER


cause list8B,Nelie Sengupta Sarani,7th Floor,Kolkata-700087.
CC NO. 314 Of 2013
1. SUPRIYO MUKHERJEE51, MAIN ROAD, EAST, P.O- NEW BATTACKPORE, P.S- GHOLA,KOLKATA-700131.WEST BENGAL ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. BANK OF INDIA225, A & B, VIVEKANANDA ROAD,KOLKATA-700006. ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR. Bipin Muhopadhyay ,PRESIDENTHON'ABLE MR. Ashok Kumar Chanda ,MEMBERHON'ABLE MRS. Sangita Paul ,MEMBER
PRESENT :

Dated : 05 Feb 2014
JUDGEMENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The case of the complainant in short, is that he has drawn mortgage overdraft loan amounting to Rs.3,80,000/- from the OP/Bank, Manicktala Branch, 225, A & B, Vivekananda Road, Kolkata – 700 009 on execution of certain documents along with two LIC’s policies.  It is the specific case of the complainant that as per compromise settlement with the OP/Bank Authority on 27-03-2012, the complainant paid the total settlement due money in instalments and lastly on 01-08-2012.  as the said loan he could not be paid in due time due to his financial difficulties OP/Bank issued notice to take possession of the property of complainant on 11-02-2012 and subsequently to save the property, the complainant approached for compromise settlement with the Bank on 27-03-2012 but in spite of financial difficulties he cleared off the dues to the OP/Bank according to the schedule of payment and paid total settlement money amounting to Rs.3,75,000/- by 01-08-2012, but the OP/Bank did not issue “no due certificate” in spite of receiving the entire amount of Rs.3,75,000/- as per compromise settlement of OP/Bank and also not returned title documents of the property to him.  Hence, this case.

          The OP/Bank neither appeared nor contested the case by filing written objection.  Hence, the case is heard ex parte.

Decision with Reasons

Admittedly, the complainant had drawn overdraft loan from the OP/Bank amounting to Rs.3,80,000/- on execution of certain documents along with 2(two) LIC Policies he paid total settlement overdraft loan due by instalments lastly on 01-08-2012 according to the compromise formula of the OP/Bank and cleared off total settlement money of Rs.3,75,000/- as settled by the OP/Bank but the OP/Bank in spite of receiving the total settlement money i.e. Rs.3,75,000/- from the complainant, did not issue “no due certificate” and even not returned the title deeds of the property which are lying with Bank(OP).

          The only question in this case is whether there is any deficiency on the part of the OP/Bank in rendering services relating to loan transaction.

          It is evident from the record that the complainant paid the settlement money by instalments and cleared off the total amount lastly on 01-08-2012.  Though complainant was fully aware of the terms of payment of the settlement money against his due overdraft loan amount vide OP’s letter dated 17-03-2012 wherein a compromise formula was appended and it was agreed by both of them to pay the settlement money amounting to Rs.3,75,000/- by instalments starting from 31-03-2012 to 26-06-2012 as per compromise proposal and related payment schedule but the complainant ultimately failed to clear off it within the specified period.  Thus due to non-payment of compromise settlement amount within the specified period i.e. on or before 26-06-2012, the complainant became defaulter in making the payment of settlement money in due time date as arrived by and between them but anyhow Bank Authority has no grievance against that where OP received it but has not raised any further claim and further has not contested the case even after receipt of the notice of this case and so it can safely be said that OP has no claim against the said loan account for which he is silent till now.

          But fact remains that OP has not sent any further notice upon the complainant claiming any further amount and so we are satisfied that OP has no further demand.  Then OP is bound to return all documents and to issue N.O.C.

Thus the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

          In the result, the complaint succeeds.

          Hence,

 

Ordered

That the complaint be and the same is allowed on ex parte but without any cost.

          OP Bank is directed to issue No Objection Certificate and also return all documents of title when LIC policies had been encashed by the OP after cancelling the mortgage agreement treating the loan account finally closed on full satisfaction and OP shall comply the order within one month from the date of this order failing which OP shall be imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- for adopting unfair trade practice and said amount shall be paid to the President, D.C.D.R.F., Kolkata, Unit-II, positively, in default penal proceeding shall be stated u/s.27 of the C.P. Act and for which further penalty shall be imposed for which the OP shall be responsible.

         

Dictated & Corrected

           by me

 


[HON'ABLE MR. Ashok Kumar Chanda] MEMBER[HON'ABLE MR. Bipin Muhopadhyay] PRESIDENT[HON'ABLE MRS. Sangita Paul] MEMBER