West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/156/2014

Sri Gurupada Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, S.B.I. & Other - Opp.Party(s)

31 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.156/2014                                                                                        Date of disposal: 31/03/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  XXXXXXXXXXX

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A. Ghorai, Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                       : Mr. S.K. Chakraborty, Advocate.                                   

          

 Sri Gurupada Patra, S/o Himangshu Patra, Vill.Basulia, P.O. Sabong Shyamsunderpur, P.S.

 Sabong, Dist. Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1)Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Debra Branch, P.O. & P.S. Debra, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, PIN.721126.

2)Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Tamluk Region, P.O. Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur, PIN.721639..……………Ops.

         The case of the complainant Sri Gurupada Patra, in short, is that an SB A/C being its No.30856583030 was opened by him on 21/07/2009 and a Fishery Loan amount into Rs.32,000/- was availed of w.e.f 14/08/2009.  In this connection, deposit of Rs.16,000/- was made by him.  Thus, the account stands balance of Rs.48,000/- as on 14/08/2009.  It is alleged that repayment of the said loan was started by installment of Rs.10,000/-.  In spite of that, no account statement was delivered in favour of the complainant enabling him to know further payment, if any, despite making demand for the same on 15/10/2014.  Ultimately, the complainant has come before us with the prayer for direction to the OP/SBI for delivery of Balance Sheet in respect of the said account with no further O.D. interest etc.   In this connection, copies of Advocate’s Letter dated 29/10/2014, Pass Book are produced by the complainant.  

         The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action and the same is barred by limitation.  The loan amount and the deposit of Rs.16,000/- dated 14/08/2009 are admitted by the OP.  In this context, it is disclosed in the written objection that a proposal for compromise for settlement of loan was made by the

Contd…………………..P/2

 

                                                              - ( 2 ) -

 

complainant with payment of Rs.10,000/- agreeing for payment of balance amount within 30/11/2014.  But thereafter no communication in this matter was held on his part.  The OP is ready to produce the Bank Statement.  Thus, there is no deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant and as such the case should be dismissed.   

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1)Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

2)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

3)Whether the OP avoided to disclose the  Account Statement on demand?

4)Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the complainant availed of Fishery Loan and started repayment thereof.  But the OP did not make delivery of account statement or Balance Sheet so that the complainant may close the repayment of the loan by virtue of further payment in case of so requirement.  This is a clear case of deficiency of service of the OP/SBI.  So, the prayer made in the petition of complainant should be allowed.

             Strong objection raised by the OP/SBI through their Ld. Advocate claiming that no such demand for or notice served upon the OP.  Rather, the complainant had approached before the OP for settlement of loan which has been duly sanctioned by the OP.  While argument, statement of account has been produced.  Ld. Advocate claims that the complainant wilfully avoids to fulfill the decision made by the OP on compromise in terms of the complainant.  Thus, no deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant was taken place by the OP/SBI.  As a result, the case should be dismissed.

            We have carefully considered the case of both parties.  It appears that the loan of Rs. 32,000/- and deposit of Rs.16,000/- are not disputed.  In this connection, matter of taking steps for compromise is not also disputed.  But only question as to why the OP/SBI did not supply the statement of account in time even upon having knowledge of such demand through Lawyer’s notice dated 29/10/2014.  In this context, there exists no satisfactory ground available in favour of the OP.  We have taken the whole matter together with the volition for the settlement of the

Contd…………………..P/3

 

                                                              - ( 3 ) -

 

 repayment of the loan account into out consideration.  The undisputed written application dated 15/10/2014 submitted by the loanee /complainant duly received of the OP/SBI bears a turning point of the dispute having an important role therein.  We should not close our eyes towards the present juncture of the approach and viable steps for compromise of the dispute between the parties.  The complainant himself prays before the banking authority with a solemn declaration for repayment of his loan amount stands due as on 15/10/2014.

    Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we do not find any strong ground for deficiency of service against the OP/SBI as alleged in the petition of complaint.  Thus, all the issues are decided accordingly and thereby the case should be dismissed.

                                Hence,

                                It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest  without cost.

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

         President                                                   Member                                      President

                                                                                                                            District Forum

                                                                                                                        Paschim Medinipur.