West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/38/2022

New Style Park Prop: Md. Masudul Haque - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Indian bank, Rampurhat Branch, - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Kr acharya

29 Feb 2024

ORDER

Shri Sudip Majumder- President-in-Charge.

The Complainant / the Petitioner fills this case U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act , 2019. The fact of the case in brief is that the petitioner Md Masudul Haque is the proprietor of New Style Park situated at Vill- Margram, P.O. and P.S. – Margram , Dist.- Birbhum. The petitioner took loan from the Allahabad Bank, Rampurhat Branch vide loan A/C No. 21721064924 for business to, maintain his livelihood. The Allahabad Bank has been merged with Indian Bank, i.e. OP No.1 as such the erstwhile Allahabad Bank is now known as Indian Bank.

            It is the further case of the Petitioner that at the time taking loan amount the Petitioner deposited two insurance policy Nos. 464827518 in the name of Masudul Haque and 461987279 in the name of Rezaul Haque and those policies had been assigned in favour of Life Insurance Corporation of india , Rampurhat Branch, i.e. OP No.2.

 

            It is the next case of the Petitioner that the petitioner paid the outstanding loan amount in one time settlement and having no dues the OP/Allahabad Bank issued  NO DUES

                                                                

                                                           

CERTIFICATE on 14/01/2016. After getting NO DUES CERTIFICATE the Petitioner had been to the office of the OP No 1 to get all the documents which had been deposited as security

against his loan account but they did not deliver the same with a plea that they could not trace out the loan file of the Complainant / Petitioner.

 

            It is the specific case of the complainant that as the aforementioned two policies vide No. 464827518 and 461987279 are going to be matured, the Complainant had been to the office of OP No. 2/LICI and requested to give the maturity amount against those policies, but they informed the Complainant that those policies have been assigned in the name of Allahabad Bank and as such the same will be reassigned by the Allahabad Bank in favour of the policy holder, otherwise the maturity amount will not be given to the complainant.

           

Thereafter, the complainant submitted his written representation on 05/03/2022 addressing the Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank with a request to return all the documents against loan amount vide No. 21721064924.the OP/Bank denied to supply the documents illegally and arbitrarily.

 

            Hence, after finding no other alternative the complainant is compelled to file this case before this commission for proper relief and prays:-

 

a. To pass an order directing the OP to deliver policy Nos. 46482758 and 461987279 duly reassigned in favour of the policy holder.

 

b. To pass an order directing the OP No 1 to pay compensation of Rs 50000/- for causing damages and mental agony upon the complainant.

 

c. To pass an order directing the OP to pay as sum of Rs 20000/- as litigation cost.

 

d. For other relief or reliefs.

 

 

It appears from the case record that the case has already been ordered to run exparte against OP No. 1/Indian Bank vide Order No 07 dated 22/09/2022.

 

In the instant case, the OP No. 2/LICI is the necessary party to this case and the complainant has no claim against them. Though, the OP No. 2/LICI filed their Written Version and written notes on argument.

 

Complainant’s side submitted evidence in chief, written notes on argument. Some documents have also been filed by the complainant’s side and those are compared with the original ones. Thereafter, respective Ld. Advocates for complainant and OP No. 2/LICI made oral arguments in support of their case.

 

Heard Ld. Advocates for complainant and OP No. 2/LICI.

 

Considered.

 

Points for determination/Issues

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

Point No 1:-

            In the instant case the complainant took loan for his livelihood purpose from Allahabad Bank, Rampurhat branch now it is Indian Bank, Rampurhat Branch.

Thus the complainant is a consumer under OP No. 1/Indian Bank and the OP No. 1 is the service provider. Hence the complainant is a consumer as per Sec. 2(7)d(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Point No 2:-

            In this case, the cause of action arose on and from 15/03/2022 and the case has been filed on 21/03/2022 and as such it can be said that the complainant has been filed this case within the statutory period of the C.P. Act, 2019 and as such the instant complaint is not barred U/S 69(1) of the C.P. Act, 2019.

           

Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this District Commission as per Notification No. G.S.R. 892(E). dated 20^th December, 2022 by Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of India, New Delhi is Rs. 50 lakh.

           

That the both complainants are resident of Sainthia, Birbhum, which is under the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Commission as per Sec. 34(2) of C.P. Act, 2019.

           

Hence, this Commission has Pecuniary Jurisdiction as well as Territorial Jurisdiction.

 

Point Nos. 3 and 4:-

            Both the points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other.

 

            Admittedly the complainant paid the outstanding loan amount in one time settlement and NO DUES certificate was issued by the Allahabad Bank on 14/01/2016.

           

That the OP No. 1 replied against the written representation dated 05/03/2022 of the complainant and they denied to supply the documents illegally and arbitrary.

 

From the documentary evidences as available from the case record this Commission is of the view that it is the statutory obligation on the part of the OP No. 1/Indian Bank to return all the documents against the loan account to the complainant .But the OP No. 1/Indian Bank did not reassigned the two policies in favour of the policy holder. At present those two policies are

 

 

 

going to be matured but the complainant is not able to get the maturity amount from OP No. 2/LICI due to deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1/ Indian Bank.

 

So it is proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the aforesaid act of the OP No. 1 /Indian Bank is as per Sec. 29(ii) of CP Act, 2019 deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice as per Sec. 2(47) of the CP Act, 2019.

 

Hence, from the above discussion it is proved that the complainant could be able to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts.

                                                           

As in this case, it is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1/Indian Bank. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get relief or compensation as prayed for.

Hence, it is,

                        ORDERED,

                                            that the instant C.F Case No CC/38/2022 be and same is  allowed exparte with cost.

 

The OP No. 1/Indian Bank is directed to deliver Policy No 464827518 and 461987279 duly reassigned in favour of the policy holder.

 

            The OP No. 1/Indian Bank is directed to pay compensation of Rs 5000/- (Five Thousand Rupees only) to the complainant/Petitioner as against mental agony and harassment to the complainant and Rs. 5000/-(Five Thousand Rupees only) as cost of litigation to the complainant.

 

            The OP No. 2/LICI is directed to comply the claim if any value of the alleged two policies after resigned in favour of the insured after all formalities as per guide line of OP/LICI.

 

 

 

 

 

The entire decree will be complied by the OP No. 1/Indian Bank within 45 (Forty Five) days  from this date of order, failing which entire amount shall carry interest @ 9%  p.a. till its realization.                       

If the OP members failed to comply the decree the complainant would be at liberty to put this order to execution in accordance with law.

            The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.