IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/20/2017.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
28.02.17 20.03.17 28.06.19
Complainant: Abul Kalam Azad
S/o Lt. Ashraful Haque
Vill, PO&PS-Be;danga,
Dist-Murshidabad,
Pin-742133
-Vs-
Opposite Party: The Branch Manager
SBI, Beldanga
PO&PS-Beldanga
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742133
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Partha Sarathi Ghosh.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri. Satinath Chandra.
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 Kalam Azad (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Branch Manager, SBI, Beldanga 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 requested for a house building loan amounting Rs.4,50,000/- from the OP and the OP approved the house building loan on condition to repay the same by twenty-five monthly installments @ Rs.4,290/-. When the OP Bank disbursed the loan amount to the Complainant to the tune of Rs.4,25,000/- but the OP did not disburse the rest amount of Rs. 25,000/- out of the sanctioned amount of Rs.4,50,000/-. In spite of that the OP realized the entire loan amount of Rs.4,50,000/- including interest totaling Rs.5,41,605/-. The Complainant wrote letter on 28.05.13 but the OP did not pay any heed to it. Subsequently, the Complainant sent an Advocate’s letter dated 16.02.16 with a request to settle the complaint but of no result. Hence, the Complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OP to pay the undisbursed sum of Rs.25,000/- and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony.
The OP contested the case by filing written version on 06.07.17 contending that the case is not maintainable as the case is barred by law of limitation. It is the specific case of the OP that a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- was sanctioned as house building loan in favour of the Complainant and a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- had been disbursed and the interest was applied upon only the disbursed amount. The OP informed the Complainant that no excess amount was recovered from him. The OP has calculated interest on Rs.4,25,000/- and it is reflected in the statement of account. The OP has no deficiency in service. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
- Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, as alleged ?
- 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 the services of the OP. The Ld. Advocate for the OP has not submitted anything on this point.
On perusal of the complaint, written version and the documents on record, we find that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired the 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 OP has not disbursed last installments of Rs.25,000/- out of the total sanctioned amount of Rs.4,50,000/- but the OP realized the loan amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and its interest from the Complainant. It is argued that the Op has deficiency in service and the Complainant is entitled to get the undisbursed amount of Rs.25,000/- and compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental pain and agony.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the OP sanctioned a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- in favour of the Complainant on certain terms and conditions and a sum of Rs. 4,25,000/- was disbursed in favour of the Complainant out of the sanctioned amount of Rs.4,50,000/-. He further argues that the OP claimed interest on Rs.4,25,000/- only and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is contended that the statement of account reveals that the amount of Rs.4,25,000/- was disbursed in favour of the Complainant and no excess amount except the disbursed loan amount and interest has been charged from the complainant. He prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
We have gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant, documents and written argument filed by the Complainant. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the Complainant as house building loan. It is the case of the Complainant that in spite of disbursement of Rs.4,25,000/-, the OP charged interest on the total sanctioned of Rs.4,50,000/-.
We have gone through the statement of accounts filed by the OP.
On a careful consideration, we find nothing to hold that the OP charged interest on the total sanctioned of Rs.4,50,000/-. It appears from the statement of accounts that the OP charged interest on the disbursed loan amount of Rs.4,25,000/-.
Hence, we hold that the Complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. So, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 28.02.17 and admitted on 20.03.17 . 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 consumer case No. CC/20/2017 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
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member President.
