West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/180/2017

Shri Lakshman Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Diptendu Ghosh

27 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

   Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

                                                                                     Pulak Kumar Singha,Member,

                                                                                                          and

                                                                                          Sagarika Sarkar,Member.

 

Complaint Case No.180/2017.

 

Shri Lakshman Das,S/o-Prafulla Das, Vill-Palasia,

P.O.-Lolitapur, P.S.-Dantan,

                                                                        Dist.-Paschim Medinipur,Pin-721426.                                                                                                                             …………..Complainant.

                                                                                                       -Vs-                                                                                                                              

1. Branch Manager, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Ghlaimore Branch,

 Situated at Vill-Gholaimore, P.O.-Lolitapur, P.S.-Dantan,

                                                                                  Dist.Paschim Medinipur,

                                                 2.The Director, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, H.O. at Berhampur,

                                                                      P.O.-Berhampur, Dist-Murshidabad.

                                                                                                      ...……….….Opp. Parties.

                                               

              For the Complainant: Mr. Diptendu Ghosh, Advocate.

              For the O.P.              : Mr.Santanu Das, Advocate.

                                                          

                                                                                  Date of filling : 20/11/2017                                                                                                           

                                                                                     Decided on   : 27/07/2018

                               

ORDER

                  Pulak Kumar Singha :– Complainant files this case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act.

                 In short the case of the complainant is that the complainant applied for B.S.K.P. loan before the B.D.O., Dantan-I, accordingly loan was sanctioned, for which the complainant had to open one Savings Bank Account before Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank of the locality of complainant, total loan was sanctioned Rs.4,75,000/- out of which Rs.1,50,000/- was subsidy and said amount was credited in the S/B account being

Contd…………...P/2

 

                                                                                                 ( 2 )

No.5189014021038 of complainant on 25/10/2016 and on the same day as per advise and instruction of O.P. No.1 total sanctioned amount was debited from the S/B account and it has been kept in separate fixed deposit account being no.5189140030065 @ 7.25% p.a. for 12 months and maturity value is Rs.4,02,936/- on 25/10/2017. Subsequently complainant opened one fixed deposit account being no.5189140030126 of Rs.1,50,000/- by debiting his S/B account @ 7.25% interest for 120 months of  maturity of Rs.3,07,706/- and date of maturity is  31/10/2026. On 18/07/2017 complainant through SMS came to know that O.P. no.1 prematured his fixed deposit account being no.5189140030126 and Rs.1,55,438/- has been credited in his S/B account and on 19/07/2017 O.P. premature another fixed deposit account being no.5189140030065 and credited Rs.3,88,910/- in S/B account and opened another new F.D. account of Rs.1,66,000/- @ interest of Rs.6.75%. Complainant raised objection of such activities of O.P. but O.P. did not pay heed rather O.P. no.1 received the original two F.D. certificates from complainant. Complainant sent letter to the O.P. no.2 and also sent legal notice but O.Ps. did not pay heed to the complain rather illegally   withhold the money and document with dishonest intention as such O.Ps. have deficient in service and complainant suffered great financial loss.Complainant appeared before this Forum for getting redressal as per prayer of his complaint.

O.Ps. contested the case  by filing Written Objection stating inter alia denying the allegations of complainant, that the complaint is not maintainable, on 25/10/216 one loan was sanctioned in favour of complainant for the business of Studio Shop for Rs.5,00,000/- out of which Rs.25,000/- is own contribution of complainant. As per instruction of complainant total amount made two separate fixed deposit account. Due to nonpayment of loan amount O.P. premature the fixed deposit amount and credited the amount of loan account and adjusted the amount with loan account. O.Ps. have no deficiency in service and the false claim of complainant is liable to be dismissed.

                                                            Decision with Reasons.

                 We have travelled over the complainant, written objection, evidences, documents and also considered the argument of both sides.

Fact of the case that one B.S.K.P. loan was sanctioned infavour of complainant of Rs.4,75,000/- and for that complainant had to open one S/B account before O.P. no.1 and to deposit Rs.25000/- as margin money. After credited the amount O.P. no.1 has kept the amount in two separate F.D. account of complainant and due to non-payment of such loan amount O.P. no.1 prematured the F.D.account and adjusted the amount with loan account along with  the another F.D. account of complainant. Complainant raised objection of such

 

Contd…………...P/3

 

                                                                                            ( 3 )

illegal debited amount to the O.Ps. but O.Ps. did not pay heed rather kept the original F.D. Certificates as such this complaint has been filed.

In support of his case complainant adduced evidence by filing examination-in-chief and tendered himself in evidence as P.W-1 and submitted some documents which are marked exhibit and the O.P. also adduced evidence by filing examination in chief by one Branch Manager, who tendered himself in evidence as OPW-1 and submitted some documents marked exhibit. OPW-1 also cross examined by complainant.

It is admitted fact that one BSKP loan was sanctioned in favour of  complainant of Rs.5,00,000/- out of which Rs.25,000/- is the complainant’s contribution amount. For operating the loan amount complainant had to open one S.B. account before O.P.No.1 of his locality. It is also admitted that O.P.No.1 credited the loan amount in S.B. account of complainant on 25.10.2016 and on the same day amount of Rs.3,75,000/-has been transferred and on 31.10.2016 Rs.1,50,000/- has also been transferred in two F.D. accounts being account No.5189140030065 dated 25.10.2016 of Rs.3,75,000/- and F.D. Account No.5189140030126 dt.31.10.2016 of Rs.1,50,000/-. As per loan agreement sanctioned loan amount will be repaid by 60 installments of  Rs.7,110/- per month but complainant did not pay loan amount of 9 installments, as such outstanding dues for non-payment O.P. prematured the said Fixed Deposit amounts and adjusted loan amount without giving prior notice to the complainant.

From the documents i.e. exhibit-A to E it is evident that actually as per application loan amount was granted for the purpose of studio business under the scheme of B.S.K.P. and as per agreement in Column No.12 (Exhibit-E)it reveals that the Borrower undertakes to utilize the loan amount solely for the purpose mentioned in the Borrower’s application and further undertakes that all the goods purchased out of the loan amount shall be used exclusively in carrying out of the said business/profession. Complainant and O.Ps. both were well aware of the terms of the agreement and as per law agreement is binding upon both parties. In the instance case, we are very much astonished that after crediting the loan amount O.P. made two fixed deposit certificate hurriedly in favour of complainant one F.D. for 12 months and another for 120 months. In which purpose loan was sanctioned, the complainant can not start his business due to non received of money from O.P.No.1as such he is unable to repay the loan amount according to  the installment mentioned in the loan agreement for which from the date of sanctioned loan 9 installments were unpaid. OPW-1 stated in his cross examination that both F.D. accounts were under lien against the loan amount on31.10.2016 and on 25.10.2016 (Exhibit-H and I respectively) but it reveals that (in exibit-2 and 3) copy of original both F.D. certificates, in the reverse page there is no such                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                             Contd…………...P/4

 

                                                                                               ( 4 )

 endorsement in respect of lien rather in the lien column on the reverse page of F.D.is blank as such it is automatically presumed that O.P.No.1 made endorsement with date in respect of lien in the reverse page of both original F.D. certificates subsequently for the purpose of their safeguard. In cross examination of complainant, Bank Manager of O.P. i.e. O.P.W.-1 stated that nowhere in the loan agreement it has been mentioned that two F.D. Certificates in question were in lien. Moreover everybody knows that before granting any loan, instruments must have to lien by the sanctioning authority but in this case O.P.No.1 preparing two F.D. Certificates, handed over the complainant and that time there was nothing mentioned any endorsement in respect of lien rather reverse page of F.D. certificates were blank which reveals in exhibit -2 and 3. It is very much clear from the documents and evidence that under B.S.K.P. scheme there was no provision for granting loan by lien or mortgage must have the main criteria as such after preparing F.D. Certificates when it was handed over the complainant there was no remarks in regard to lien, when loan was unpaid for few months then Bank authority i.e.O.P.No.1 contacted with the complainant and received those certificates made endorsement in respect of lien on putting back date and kept those certificates in their custody. Subsequently O.P.No.1prematured those F.D.Certificates and adjusted loan amount without any information or notice upon the complainant. In case of unpaid loan O.P.No.1 should premature one F.D. and adjusted the dues amount in the account of loan and rest amount should be further fixed by creating new F.D. certificate but O.P. humegically and illegally premature two F.D. certificates as because repayment of loan for the period of 60 months where complainant unpaid the loan amount and fail to repay only 9 installments.

It is pertinent to mentioned that Govt.of West Bengal launched the scheme in the name“SwamiVivekananda Swanirbhar Karmasansthan Prakalpa (Atmamaryada)”to motivate the young generations for self employment by way earning and financial stability of the unemployed youth in our society as such under this scheme in the application form (exhibit-A) submitted by O.Ps,it appears that there is no column for deposit any earnest money or lien or mortgage any instrument or property.

It is the rule of Bank that when any loan is granted for any particular purpose then Bank authority insisted the loanee to submit quotation of expenses and for that purpose exclusively the loan amount will be utilized but in this case we very much astonished where loan was granted for the purpose of making “Studio”, naturally the loan amount should be disbursed only for that purpose and after repayment of loan Govt. subsidy amount will be paid to the loanee. In the instance case on the date of  receipt of the sanctioned loan amount immediately O.Ps. have invested the total sum in two F.D. in favour of complainant                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                                Contd…………...P/5

 

                                                                                   ( 5 )

including margin money Rs.25,000/- paid by complainant which is against the loan agreement, unethical, beyond the law as well as Banking rules. Bank Manager/officials of O.Ps. deliberately violating the banking rules and motto of the Govt. Scheme, transferred the total amount in two fixed deposits for gaining their own capital of O.Ps. we think if the implementing agency of a Govt. Scheme indulging the loanee not to make the project with the loan sanctioned amount rather to deposit the money in F.D. account then the welfare scheme for the society launched by the Govt. will be vitiated. We think higher officials like Managing Director or any designated superior official should be vigilant and more rigid in respect granting loan of any Govt. Sponsored scheme, so that like such Branch Manager of O.P.-Bank can not make such unethical and illegal act for which the Govt. Social Welfare Scheme would not nipped in the bud. We think such Branch Manager of the instant loan implementing Bank can be questioned or any suitable step should be taken by the Head Office or by O.P.No.2.

                From the evidence of OPW-1 and exibit-10 and 12 it appears that total loan amount dues has been paid by the complainant and O.Ps. have also issued no dues certificate dt.06.3.2018. O.Ps have premature total F.D. amount against loan dues amount for only 9 months installments which amounts to Rs.64,000/- as dues but due to total F.D. amounts premature, complainant has financially looser which should be compensated by the O.Ps. In the instant case O.Ps. have unfair trade practice being an implementing agency of Govt. Sponsored Scheme.

                In view of the above discussions we think as B.S.K.P. loan in question with interest as per agreement was adjusted by prematuring total F.D. amount and rest amount fixed in a Fixed Deposit Account being No.879035 dt.19.7.2017 of Rs.1,66,000/-  @ 6.75% rate of interest in favour of complainant by the O.Ps and O.Ps. have also issued no dues certificate on.6.3.2018 to the complainant and in that event all disputes in respect of B.S.K.P. loan in question has been ended. Complainant prayed for relief for rectification and adjusted rest amount of interest of premature of F.D. Certificates and further F.D. made by O.Ps .on less rate of interest and prayed for other relief but subsequently situation has been changed and O.Ps. have adjusted total loan amount with interest by prematuring two F.D. certificates, so, at present we think, that for avoiding future complications in respect of rate of interest on F.D. certificate and period of maturity, it would be better to refund back the present F.D. amount of Rs.1,66,000/- with interest @ 6.75% per annum from the date of issue of such F.D. till the date of issued no dues certificate and  with compensation and other relief.

Contd…………...P/6

 

                                                                                           ( 6 )

                We travelled over the case record, documents and evidences and it reveals that O.Ps are negligent, deficient in service and also made unfair trade practice and also violating Banking rules as such complainant is entitled to get an order of refund back deposited F.D. amount with interest, compensation and litigation cost.

                Thus complaint case succeeds.

                               Hence, it is,

                                                         Ordered

                          that the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. with cost.

               O.P.No.1 is directed to refund back  the amount against F.D. being No.879035 dt.19.7.2017 of Rs.1,66,000/- and Account No.51894003134 with interest @ 6.75% from 19.7.2017 to 6.3.2018 to the complainant i.e. Rs.1,80,006/-, to pay Rs.20,000/- compensation for harassment, monetary loss and to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost within one month from the date of order and also directed to updated the pass book in question of complainant.          

                 Failure to comply O.Ps. shall be liable to pay penal cost Rs.5,000/- per month to be paid to the Legal Aid Fund of this Forum  till full realization.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

              Dictated and Corrected by me

                   Sd/-P.K. Singha                         Sd/- S. Sarkar                      Sd/-B. Pramanik.

                           Member                                    Member                                President

                                                                                                                     District Forum

                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur