J U D G E M E N T

The case of the complainant in a nutshell is as follows:-       

1

            The complainant Sri Asim Kumar Hazra, Radhanagar, Asansol, Burdwan has filed this complaint against Branch Manager, State Bank of India, RASMACC-cum-SARC, Asansol i.e. OP-1, The AGM, State Bank of India, RASMACC-cum-SARC, Asansol i.e. OP-2 and the Chairman, State Bank of India, Mumbai i.e. OP-3.

            As per complaint the complainant is a physically handicapped, educated youth. To look after his aged mother and unemployed brother the OP-1&2 sanctioned a loan of Rs. 2, 80,000=00 on 24.6.2002 for purchasing an AC Ambassador Car under Bengal Swanirbhar Karmasansthan Prakalpa (BSKP). As per terms of said loan agreement Mr. Nabani Dhar Majumder will be the guarantor and a sum of Rs. 50,000=00 valued NSC will be kept as collateral security for the said loan and the purchased vehicle will be primary security towards the said loan. The complainant fulfilled the terms and the conditions of the said loan agreement and regularly repaid installments. The said hypothecated car of the complainant was engaged on rental basis of Rs. 7,600=00 with the OP. The OP on or after December, 2012 has discontinued the service of the complainant’s vehicle most whimsically and arbitrarily and the complainant had some grievance therefore but those are not the subject-matter of the instant proceeding. So long the vehicle of the complainant was engaged with OP-Bank it had continued to deduct premium towards repayment of loan from the rent bill of the complainant. The collateral security in the form of NSC was also adjusted against loan account in or around February, 2011. By a letter dated 16.7.2012 Ld. Advocate Chiranjit Goswami informed that the loan account had turned NPA on 31.3.2003 and a sum of Rs. 89,270.75 paisa stands due. Some further communications were carried out with the Bank and ultimately the complainant obtained the statement of accounts of his loan account. On 11.4.2013 the complainant came to know that on 24.6.2010 the said car loan account stood written off with a closing balance of debit and then arose the cause of action for this complaint. The cause of action was further renewed on 20.2.2014 when the OP claimed outstanding dues of Rs. 64,770.75 paisa on 24.6.2010 and referred the claim to Lok Adalat. This was a BSKP loan and granted under the beneficial scheme and policy of the government loan accounts may be written off. After writing off the loan does not carry any further liability to make payment and at the same time the Bank also does not continue the right to realize any further money in the self-same loan account. The complainant was not even informed that the loan account has been written off. In the instant case the bank has realized money from the complainant even after writing of. Amount so realized is about Rs. 90,000=00. The complainant is entitled to return back all the money paid by him to the bank after writing off the loan account. The bank kept the complainant ignorant about the writing off and thereby also

2

committed deficiency in service. The bank authority is still insisting upon the payment of the loan outstanding and the amount is differing from time to time and the bank authority has threatened that the vehicle of the complainant will be forcibly seized and out of fear the complainant is unable to run his vehicle. Due to prolonged keeping of the vehicle in a stationary state it has suffered damage. The complainant is thereby entitled to a compensatory relief and also an injunction against seizure of the vehicle by the Ops. The compensation of Rs. 4, 00,000=00 is adequate to meet the loss suffered by the complainant. The complainant shall further be entitled to compensation on account of mental agony and harassment. The complainant is also entitled to cost incurred by him for making representation visiting office and other accounts. The quantum of these two heads is respectively assessed at Rs. 1, 00,000=00 and Rs. 30,000=00. Thus the claim of the complainant comes at Rs. 6, 20,000=00.

            The Ops have contested the case by filing written version jointly denying the entire allegations made by the complainant in his petition of complaint. The Ops have stated that the complainant has taken a BSKP loan amounting to Rs. 2, 80,000=00 from the SBI, Asansol Branch on 24.6.2002 for purchasing an AC Ambassador Car and he has executed the loan document against the said loan. Thereafter he did not repay the loan properly and did not maintain the rules and regulations of the loan agreement properly, so the status of the loan account is NPA and for that reason the bank has made several reminders and requests to the complainant. But the complainant failed to comply the said requests. The Ops further submit that that according to the aforesaid situation the bank has no other alternative but to send a demand notice dated 22.02.2010 but the complainant did not respond the same. For that reason the Ops have no other alternative but to file the legal notice dated 16.7.2012. But the complainant has not responded the legal notice also. Not only that the bank also issued a notice of Lok Adalat to settle the case dated 20.02.2014. But the complainant had not responded to the notice of the Lok Adalat also. So, from the aforesaid situation it is clean and clear that the complainant wants to misappropriate the loan amount. Not only that the complainant has filed this case to obtain undue gain from Ops and also to misguide the ld. Forum. So, the case will be dismissed with exemplary cost. The Ops also submit that that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and the Ops are not liable to pay jointly or severally any amount claimed by the complainant. The complaint is baseless, without any cause and the complainant by concealing the actual state of facts and circumstances has filed this complaint as a test suit for undue gain from the Ops by misguiding the ld. Forum. As such the complaint of the complainant may be dismissed with exemplary cost.

3

Ops have submitted documents like loan agreement, correspondences with the complainant for making payment and statement showing loan position.

            During argument the Ops have submitted that at the present situation the loan amount stands in the AUCA account. The said loan was written off in bank’s account on 24.6.2010 showing a balance of Rs. 1, 38,270.75 paisa after which some payments were made by the complainant which was adjusted by realizing from his bills and in the present situation the loan account is lying at AUCA account as Rs. 64,770.75 paisa and with interest its total as Rs. 85,754.41 paisa due from the complainant.

-: Decision with reasons :-

            It is in admitted position that the complainant took a loan of Rs. 2,80,000=00 on 24.6.2002 for purchasing one AC Ambassador Car which was subsequently engaged on hypothecation with the State Bank of India i.e. OP-1  @Rs. 7,600=00 per month. In the said loan the collateral security of Rs. 50,000=00 of NSC of one Nabani Dhar Majumder was also kept along with the vehicle which was primary security. The said loan was not cleared by the complainant inspite of several correspondences and notices sent by Ops. The loan subsequently become NPA and was written off on 24.6.2010 showing a balance amount of Rs. 1, 38,270.75 paisa which was subsequently sent to AUCA account. However, the bank continued to realize the books hire-purchase from the complainant and the same amount was being deposited in the AUCA account. As it was already transferred to AUCA account for written off the said loan amount. The complainant has claimed relief that as it has already written off so bank is not in a position to claim any further amount from the complainant. Infact on going through the statements submitted by the Ops it is seen that on 24.6.2010 when it was written off there was a due amount of loan amounting to Rs. 1, 38,270.75 paisa against a total loan of Rs. 2,80,000=00. The complainant’s claim cannot be agreed under any circumstances that after written off the loan amount the bank cannot realize any amount from the complainant. It is the prerogative of the Ops how and what process they will recover the loan amount due from the complainant or the said due loan amount will remain in what account. In such a situation it is hold that there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. The complainant has miserably failed to substantiate his claim against the Ops.  Accordingly, it is

4

O r d e r e d

that the petition of complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed on contest. However considering the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.

            Let a free copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of charge.

                   (Asoke Kumar Mandal)        

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                         President      

                                                                                                                   DCDRF, Burdwan

                    (Durga Sankar Das)

                           Member

                   DCDRF, Burdwan

                                                      (Silpi Majumder)                             (Durga Sankar Das)

                                                          Member                                                      Member

                                                     DCDRF, Burdwan                                          DCDRF, Burdwan