IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

                                                                           CASE No.  CC/142/2017.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

   29.08.17                                        08.09.17                             10.04.19

Complainant: Abul Hasan

S/o, Late Md. Kashem Ali,

Vill- Gobordhandanga,

PO-Gobordhandhandanga,

 PS-Sagardighi,

Dist-Murshidabad,

 Pin-742122

-Vs-

Opposite Party: The Branch Manager,

Allahabad Bank, Sahapur Branch,

PO&PS-Sagardighi,

Dist-Murshidabad,

Pin-742226

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant            : Sri. Prabir Kr. Banerjee.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party         : Smt. Sampa Roy.

                       Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                              

                                          Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

  Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.

    This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            One Abul Hasan (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Sahapur Branch (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

    The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

            The Complainant took loan from the OP Bank being account No.22452480329 on deposit of certain documents including original registered deed. Subsequently, he paid the dues and the OP Bank issued a letter informing the Complainant that the Complainant deposited the full amount in terms of settlement of loan account No.22452480329. In spite of repeated requests, the OP did not return the documents to the Complainant. Ultimately, the Complainant sent an advocate’s letter dated 14.07.17 requesting the OP to return the documents but of no result. Hence, the Complainant has filed the case praying for a direction upon the OP for return of documents including original registered deed and cost of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and agony.

            The OP contested the case by filing written version on 03.01.18, contending  that the case is not maintainable and it is barred by law of limitation. It is the specific case of the OP that the Complainant took KCC loan of Rs.60,000/- without depositing any original document and no deed is required to be mortgaged in case of sanction of KCC loan of Rs.60,000/- as per circular. The OP Bank has no liability to handover any document to the Complainant. The claim of the Complainant is vague and the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

            On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper      adjudication of the case :

Points for decision

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Point no.1

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired services of the OP for consideration.

On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986 as he hired services of the OP for consideration.

Point No.2

     The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.

On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of.

Point Nos. 3&4

            The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant took a loan on deposit of certain documents including original deed but the OP did not return the original deed in spite of repayment of dues and repeated requests. He submits that the Complainant sent an advocate’s letter to the OP on 14.07.17 requesting him to return the documents but of no result. It is urged that the OP has deficiency in service and the OP may be directed to return the original documents including the registered deed and to pay cost of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and agony.

             In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the OP took KCC loan of Rs.60,000/- without deposit of any title deed and there is no need to deposit any title deed in case of sanction of KCC loan of  Rs.60,000/- as per Government circular. He contends that the Complant is false and vague and the Complainant has failed to establish that he deposited any original  document including title deed at the time of sanction of his loan. He prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

            We have gone through the written complaint, written version, written arguments and xerox copies of documents filed by the Complainant. Admittedly, the Complainant took KCC loan of Rs.60,000/- being account No. 224524800329 and his loan account has been closed as he deposited the compromised amount in full.

            Now the question is whether the Complainant deposited any original title deed or other original document for the purpose of taking the loan. The Complainant has not filed any scrap of paper to establish that he deposited original title deed/original documents at the time of sanction of his loan.

            It is the version of the OP that the Complainant never deposited any original document at the time of sanction of loan as there was no need to deposit of any original title deed for sanction of KCC loan of Rs.60,000/-. Neither of the parties has filed their evidence on affidavit.

            On a careful consideration, we find that that the Complainant has failed to establish that he deposited any original document at the time of sanction of the loan. Therefore, the question of return of original document does not arise. We find that the Complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 29.08.17 and admitted on 08.09.17. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders..

In the result, the Consumer case fails.

Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

                        Ordered

that the complaint case No. CC/142/2017 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP without cost.

             Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in