IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/45/2017.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
29.03.17 24.04.17 11.06.19
Complainant: Md. Habibur Rahaman
S/O- Lt. Saifuddin Sk, Vill- Bhabanipur,
PO- Krishnapur, PS- Lalgola,
Pin- 742148
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1.Branch Manager, SBI, Lalgola Branch
Vill & PO & PS- Lalgola,
Pin- 742148
2.Regional Manager, State Bank Of India
Berhampore Region Office,
Fouzdari Court Complex,
PO & PS- Berhampore,
Pin- 742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Debraj Mukherjee.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1&2 : 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 Md. Habibur Rahaman (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Branch Manager, SBI, Lalgola Branch and Another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:
The Complainant applied for a house building loan from the OP No.1 and the OPs sanctioned a loan to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/-. The OP No.1 credited Rs.1,00,000/- on 11.05.16 as first installment of his loan but the Complainant was not allowed to withdraw the said amount and came to know that the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited in a fixed deposit account of the Complainant. Subsequently, the OPs credited two installments @ Rs.40,000/- each on 31.07.06 and 08.09.06 and the Complainant was directed to pay EMI @ Rs. 4,000/-. The OP No.1 also opened a life insurance without any knowledge of the Complainant by deducting premium from his account. . The OP No.1 credited a fixed deposit account amounting Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of the Complainant without the consent of the Complainant. Moreover, the EMI paid by the Complainant @ Rs.4,000/- per month was transferred to the name of one Md. Mohib and the loan amount was not reduced in spite of regular payment made by the Complainant. The Complainant raised an objection against such unilateral act on the part of the OPs but the OPs did not pay any heed to it. The OPs have deficiency in service. Hence, the Complainant has filed the case praying for a direction upon the OPs to close the loan account on observation that the Complainant has paid all dues and to direct the OPs to pay the fixed deposit in the name of the Complainant being No. TD0724248 and to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the Complainant.
The OP Nos. 1 and 2 contested the case by filing written version on 08.11.17 contending that the case is not maintainable and the Complainant has no cause of action to file the case. The OPs denied the allegations that a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- was sanctioned as loan in favour of the Complainant and the OPs created fixed deposit amounting Rs.1,00,000/- and SBI Life Insurance without any instruction from the Complainant.
It is the specific case of the OPs that a total of Rs.3,03,221/- was sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the OP and as per instruction of the Complainant a sum of Rs.13,221/- had been paid to SBI Life for Insurance Policy and a fixed deposit amounting Rs.1,00,000/- was opened in the name of the complainant as per choice of the Complainant.
It is also the case of the OPs that the Complainant was not regular in payment of EMI in spite of repeated requests by the OP No.1 for which the loan account became NPA. As the Complainant failed to repay the loan amount in spite of repeated reminders by the OP No.1, the OP No.1 has been compelled to note lien upon the fixed deposit account of the Complainant in the computerized system. All payments made by the Complainant have been reflected in the statement of account and the OP No.1 is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.3,01,950/- as on 03.11.17 along with interest to be applicable from the date of NPA against the Complainant before liquidation of the amount lying with fixed deposit account along with interest. The OPs have no deficiency in service. The OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
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 OPs, 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 she hired services of the OPs for consideration.
The Ld. Advocate for the OPs submits that the Complainant is not a consumer. On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986.
Point No.2
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
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant took house building loan amounting Rs.1,80,000/-and it was credited in the savings bank account of the complainant by the OP No.1. It is urged that creation of fixed deposit account in the name of the Complainant amounting Rs.1,00,000/- and payment of Rs.13,221/- to SBI Life Insurance Policy were behind the back of the Complainant. It is contended that a sum @ Rs.4,000/- was transferred to S/o Md. Mohiv as it appears from the pass book dated 25.10.06,25.11.06, 26.12.06, 25.01.07,26.02.07.21.04.07,08.05.07. He argues that the Complainant has paid the dues regularly and he has no dues for his loan amount. He prays for a direction upon the OPs to close the loan account and to pay the matured sum on the fixed deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant. He submits that the Ops have deficiency in service. He also prays for compensation against the OPs.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP Nos. 1and 2 submits that the Complainant applied for housing loan of Rs.2,90,000/- and he also requested the OP No.1 to provide him with a loan amount of Rs.13,221/- towards the single premium amount for the insurance cover and disburse the amount to SBI life insurance corporation. He files a xerox copy of the application addressed to the OP No.1 executed by the Complainant (Annexure-1).
It is contended that the total amount of Rs.2,90,000/- was disbursed to the account of the Complainant and a sum of Rs.13,221/- had paid to SBI Life for Insurance Policy as per instruction of the Complainant. It is contended that the statement of accounts (Annexure-2) goes to show that on 25.10.06,25.11.06, 26.12.06, 25.01.07,26.02.07.21.04.07,08.05.07. no amount has transferred to the account of any Md. Mohib but amount of Rs.4,000/- on those dates was credited as monthly installments as per standing instruction. He contends that the OPs have no other option but to keep lien on the fixed deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as the Complainant was not regular in payment of EMI in spite of repeated requests and the loan account has been turned NPA. It is argued that the Complainant has tried his best to avoid payment of due amount and the OP No.1 is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.3,01,950/- as on 03.11.17 along with interest to be applicable from the date of NPA from the Complainant before the liquidation of the amount lying with fixed deposit account of the Complainant along with interest.
Perused the written complaint, written version, evidence and documents filed by both sides. We have also considered the submission of both sides. The Complainant has asserted that a loan of Rs.1,80,000/- was sanctioned in his favour but it appears from annexure 1 submitted by OPs that the Complainant applied for house building loan of Rs.2,90,000/- along with Rs.13,221/- for payment of single premium amount for the insurance to SBI Life Insurance. It is true that there may be some misconception on going through the statement reflected in the savings bank pass book of the Complainant dated 25.10.06,25.11.06, 26.12.06, 25.01.07,26.02.07.21.04.07,08.05.07 but it appears from the statement of account of the loan account (Annexure-2) that on 25.10.06,25.11.06, 26.12.06, 25.01.07,26.02.07.21.04.07,08.05.07 no amount had been transferred to the account of any Md. Mohib but amount was credited on those dates as per standing instruction monthly instalment. It also appears from the statement of accounts and other documents filed by the OPs that the Complainant was not regular in payment of EMI.
We find valid substance in the submission of the Ld. Advocate of the OPs that loan account of the Complainant had turned NPA due to irregular payment of EMI.
Admittedly, the Complainant took house building loan from the OP No.1. It is the duty of the Complainant to repay the loan amount in terms of loan agreement but the Complainant has failed to produce documents to earn the confidence of this Forum that he was regular in payment of EMI and he paid all the EMIs as per loan agreement. It is the case of the OPs that OPs noted lien on the fixed deposit account of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of the Complainant for recovery of the loan amount. This Forum finds no reason to direct the OPs to make payment of matured amount of the fixed deposit to the Complainant before repayment of entire loan amount with interest.
We find that the Complainant has failed to establish that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. We find no ground to believe that the OPs deducted Rs.13,221/- from the loan account for payment of insurance to SBI Life without consent of the Complainant and opened a fixed deposit account without instruction of the Complainant.
We think that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 29.03.17 and admitted on 24.04.17 . 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 complaint Case No.CC/45/2017 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OPs 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.
Member
Member President.
