BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

CACHAR :: SILCHAR

Con. Case No. 35 of 2017

            Debaish Bhattacharjee

            C/O Pronoti Bhattacharjee

            Nirmal Enclave, Ambikapatty, Silchar, Cachar

            At Present residing at House No.57, R.K Mission Path, Birubari,

            Guwahati, Kamrup Metro.…………………………                                    Complainant. 

                                                            -V/S-

1. Allahabad Bank

Hospital Road, Branch, Silchar Dist.Cachar, Assam. ……………… O.P.

Present: -                                Sri Bishnu Debnath,                                        President,

District Consumer Forum,

                                                Cachar, Silchar.                                            

                                                            Sri Kamal Kumar Sarda,                                        Member,

                                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                                            Cachar, Silchar.                                             

            Appeared: -       Mr. Dibakar Chakraborty, Advocate for the complainant.

                                       Mr. Santanu Nandan Bhattacharjee, Advocate for the O.P.

                                                 Date of Evidence                                          03-05-2018, 13-06-2018

                         Date of written argument                             13-12-2018, 26-12-2018

                         Date of oral argument                                  06-02-2019, 04-06-2019

                         Date of judgment                                          15-06-2019

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

                                 Sri Bishnu Debnath,

1. This case has been brought by Debasish Bhattacharjee (complainant) under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the Allahabad Bank, Hospital Road, Silchar, Cachar, Assam(OP) for award of compensation for release the maturity amount of Fixed Deposit with up to date interest.

2. To get the relief aforesaid, the complainant laid down the facts by his complaint. The said fact is briefly stated below :-

3. The Complainant made fixed deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- with OP on 19.06.2009. The date of maturity was 28.08.2011 and maturity value of the fixed deposit was Rs.1,78,445/- vide Receipt No.0061296 and A/C  No. 50015324154. Said fixed deposit was assigned to Bank guarantee on behalf of a petrol pump, name & style M/S Balaji Udyog, village Neelcherra, PO Jarailtola Bazaar, Cachar, Assam but on 29.05.2010 the said assignment was withdrawn by the complainant and asked the OP to make payment of eligible amount with interest. OP did not respond. Thus, on inquiry the complainant got information that maturity amount renewed up to 21.11.2014. However, on 21.02.2015 the complainant by serving registered letter No.779 requested the OP for premature closer of the said fixed deposit as the amount was required for his medical treatment and for his son's education but the OP did not do so. Hence, the complainant served a legal Notice dated 25.04.2016 for premature closer of the fixed deposit but the OP did not respond the legal Notice.

4. The OP in its written Statement stated  inter-alia  that the complainant lien the TDR Receipt No.0061296 dated 19.06.2009 with the OP bank in the capacity of provider as bank guarantee in favour of I.O.C for Cash Credit & Term Loan finances availed by M/S Balaji Udyog under TL A/C No.20454431963 and CC A/C No.20454366800 respectively. The said bank guarantee was granted in the year 2009 on request of the complainant, as desired by the I.O.C as security against performance of the firm as work contractor. Accordingly, the complainant executed a letter of lien dated 19.06.2009 in favour of the OP covenanting that in case, the borrower failed to repay the loan, the proceeds of the fixed deposit would be liable to be adjusted in the loan Account as well. On the strength of the lien of the fixed deposit, the OP initially issued Bank Guarantee No.SIL/0461/2009-10/03, dated 19.06.2009 with validity up to 18.12.2011. Subsequently, on the strength of said fixed deposit, the Bank Guarantee was extended on 21.05.2012 with validity up to 21.11.2014. In the mean time, during continuance of the loan facilities, the borrower defaulted in operating the C.C. Account. So, the answering OP repeatedly requested the borrower by consecutive demand Notices dated 27.07.2011 and 11.05.2013 to repay the loan dues but in vain. Ultimately, the C.C. Account and the Term Loan Account turned NPA (Non-Performing Asset) on 26.06.2014 and 31.03.2014 respectively. Accordingly, OP recalled the loan facilities and demanded to repay the entire loan dues by final demand Notice dated 06.08.2014 but the borrower did not repay the balance. Hence, OP by exercising the inherent right of set-off, a part of the proceeds of term deposit was adjusted in the Cc account on 07.04.2012 and subsequently, the remaining proceeds of the term deposit were adjusted in the Term Loan Account on 18.02.2015.

​

5. The complainant submitted his deposition supporting an affidavit and exhibited 4(four) documents including his letter dated 29.05.2010 addressed to the Manager of OP regarding withdrawal of assignment. The OP also submitted deposition of Sri Amitava Das the Branch Manager of the OP and exhibited some documents including Account Statement. At the ending of the evidence the learned advocate of the parties submitted their written argument.

6. I have heard oral argument and perused the evidence on record including written argument. It is admitted facts that the complainant's fixed deposit No.006161296 dated 19.06.2009 was assigned to bank guarantee on the 19.06.2009  for Cash Credit & Term Loan finances availed by M/S Balaji Udyog, a proprietary firm under TL A/C No.20454431963 and CC A/C No.20454366800 respectively. However, as per the OP said bank guarantee was extended up to 21.11.2014 but the complainant tried to establish the plea that  he has withdrawn the assignment on 29.05.2010, vide, Ext.2. The OP denied all those pleas.

7. Hence, I have gone through the Ext.2 and other material on record but no more documents are found to support the plea that the letter regarding withdraw of assignment has actually been served to the OP. The complainant deposed that he served the letter by registered post, vide No.598 dated 29.05.2010. But no such postal receipt is available in the record. The complainant also did not explain the matter to establish the plea. Moreover, nothing brought before this District Forum regarding alternative arrangement of bank guarantee, if really served the letter to withdraw the assignment. However, on the other hand the OP by adducing evidence tried to establish the plea that initially the bank guarantee was valid up to 18.12.2011, vide Ext. C and subsequently extended up to 21.11.2014, vide Ext. D. The said fact is remain unrebutted. So it is of opinion that OP extended the bank guarantee within the knowledge of the complainant.

8. However, in this case the OP pleaded that during the continuance of the loan facilities, the borrower i.e.,M/S Balaji Udyog defaulted in operating the C.C.Account and failed to repay the installments of the loan as per agreement and in consequence the CC Account as well as the TL Account turned in to NPA(Non-Performing Asset) since 26.06.2014 and 31.03.2014 respectively. To support this facts the OP adduced oral evidence of the DW Sri Amitava Das. The said witness not only supported the plea above but also deposed that before the aforesaid CC Account and the TL Account turned in to NPA, Demand Notices issued to the borrower to repay loan dues but the borrower did not do so. He exhibited the copy of Demand Notice dated 27.07.2011 and dated 11.05.2013. Ext. E and Ext. F are those Demand Notice. It is also deposed that final Demand Notice was issued to the borrower on 06.08.2014, vide Ext. I, in which it has been shown that total bank dues was Rs.25,40,913/- as on the date of issue of the Ext. I, i.e., Demand Notice. The DW deposed further that the borrower did not repay the aforesaid bank dues in spite of serving Demand Notice, for which as per procedure of the bank rule, by exercising the inherent right of set-off, a part of the proceeds of the term deposit of the complainant has been adjusted in the C.C.Account on 07.04.2012 and subsequently, remaining proceeds of the term deposit were adjusted in the TL account on 18.02.2015. In support of the said facts, the OP exhibited bank Statement of Account as Ext. G & H. I have gone through those documents and convinced that the OP issued Demand Notice before the aforesaid Accounts turned in to NPA. It is also clear from the above evidence that the OP has adjusted the maturity value of the fixed deposit of the complainant with the outstanding bank dues above.
9. Therefore, by taking the principle of the preponderance of probability of the evidence of the parties, I am of opinion that the OP by adopting the proper procedure, adjusted the maturity amount of the fixed deposit of the complainant with the outstanding bank dues. As such, in my consider view, the OP committed nothing wrong. So, the complainant is not entitled any relief from this District Forum. Thus, this case is dismissed of on contest without cost.

10. Supply free certified copy of the judgment to the parties. Given under my hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 15^th day of June,2019.