West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/69/2015

Mr. Kalipada Mondal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, State Bank of India Halderdighi Branch - Opp.Party(s)

24 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

 and

 Mr. Kapot Kumar Chattopadhyay

   

Complaint Case No.69/2015

                                                        

Mr. Kalipada Mondal………….………Complainant

Versus

Branch Manager, SBI, Halderdighi, Khirpai ……..Opp. Party.

 

 For the Complainant: Mr. Ranjan Maity, Advocate.

 For the O.P.              : Mr. Samir Kumar Ghosh, Advocate.

 

 

Decided on: -24/02/2016

                               

ORDER

   Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member- The case of the complainant in a nut shell is that one Mithu Ghosh (Mondal) during her life time availed a BSKP loan from the SBI, Halderdeghi Branch on 08/02/2006 and her loan A/c No. is 11869984507 and as per banking rules the complainant stood as guarantor for repayment of the dues of the said loan.

The complainant states that the Bank Manager, Halderdeghi Branch disbursed the said loan to the complainant’s wife Mithu Ghosh (Mondal) after depositing the original little deed in the name of the complainant and the original LICI certificate in the name of the complainant being No.430254523 and its maturity value is Rs.47,925/-.

The complainant’s wife Mithu Ghosh(Mondal) time to time repaid her dues to the SBI, Halderdeghi Branch.

Contd……………….P/2

 

( 2 )

The complainant states that in the year 2010, the said Mithu Ghosh (Mondal) was infected by lung cancer and ultimately she was  admitted at Tata Memorial Hospital at Mumbai and died on 09/10/2011. The complainant states that during illness of her wife she could not repay the loan amount   regularly.

On 26/03/2012 the complainant informed the Branch Manager about the death of the borrower i.e. Mithu Ghosh (Mondal), the wife of the complainant. The complainant at the same time requested the Branch Manager to adjust the loan account of Mithu  Ghosh (Mondal)  with the LICI amount which is in the name of the complainant and return the original property documents.

The complainant states that inspite of accepting the adjustment proposal the Branch Manager, SBI, Halderdighi Branch demanded the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.1,10,534/- (One lakh ten thousand five hundred thirty four) only as due in respect of  loan account being No.11869984507 by a letter of their Ld. Advocate. After receiving the demand letter the complainant appeared before the manager of the aforesaid Bank and requested him to waive the interest of the said loan account and the complainant assured the Bank Manager that the complainant is ready to pay the rest loan amount at once.

Thereafter the Bank Manager accepted the proposal of the complainant and on 25/08/2014 the Branch Manager, SBI, Halderdighi, demand deceased Mithu  Ghosh (Mondal) a sum of Rs.93,954/- (Ninety three thousand nine hundred fifty four) only as dues in respect of loan A/c no.11869984507 under SBI-OTS 2014 /14.

The complainant states that without any further request the complainant repaid the entire loan amount on 20/11/2014 and obtained a no dues certificate.

That thereafter the Op. though got the entire loan amount did not take any initiative for return back of the property documents and the LICI certificate of the complainant and complainant’s wife which are lying with the SBI, Halderdighi Branch.

Having harassed mentally and financially the complainant has no other way than to file case for compensation and appropriate order.

The complainant also contended that for non compliance of the promises made by the Op-Bank it amount completely deficiency in service as defined under Sec.2(1)(g) of the consumer protection Act. The complainant also states that the Op-Bank did not obey the code of conduct under banking guide rule and R.B.I. guideline.

Contd……………….P/3

 

( 3 )

The complainant also states that the Op-Bank has also played an unfair trade practice to words the consumer.

Therefore the complainant prays relief before the Hon’ble Forum for return of the original documents in the name of the complainant and also prays for an order for award of damages.

Op. contested the case by filing written objection stating that the complainant has filed a vague and false case only to harass the Op. The Op. also admitted that it is a fact that the wife of the complainant took a BSKP loan after depositing the deed of property and LIC policy but due to her early death she could not repay the loan amount totally. It is also admitted by the Op. that after the demise of the wife of the complainant Mithu Ghosh (Mondal) the Op-Bank realized the loan amount by a scheme of one time settlement. But it is states by the Op-Bank that the complainant never came to the Op-Bank Manager for return of original documents.

The Op contained that the complainant intentionally filed this complainant against the Op. and it is a false complainant and the Op also that if the complainant came to the Branch office of the Op, the Op must return the original document. Thus Op prays before the Forum for dismissal of the complaint case   made against the Op as the case is completely false and speculative.

                      Points for decision  

1)Whether the Op is deficiency of service with the meaning of Sec. 2(1(g) read with Sec. 2 (1)(o) of the C.P. Act.

2)Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

             Decisions with reasons

Both  the points are taken up for discussion and consideration. Complainant made his argument. Admittedly, Mithu Ghosh since deceased the wife of the complainant availed BSKP loan from the Op-Bank and the complainant stood as guarantor of the said loan agreement. It is undisputed that said Mithu Ghosh died on 19/10/2011 and after her death the complainant paid the entire balance amount of loan amounting to Rs.93,955/- under one time settlement scheme and the Op-Bank also issued a no dues certificate on 22/11/2014 in favour of the complainant. Now the grievance of the complainant is that inspite of issuing such no dues certificate the Op-Bank did not return the property documents and the LICI policy certificate. As against this Op.’s case is that the complainant never visited their bank for receiving these documents. At the time of hearing the

Contd……………….P/4

 

 

( 4 )

argument Ld. Lawyer for the Op-Bank submitted that they are ready to rerurn back all the documents to the complainant.

In the above facts and circumstances of this case and in view of above discussions, it is held that the complainant’s case deserves to be allowed in part.    

                                         Hence, it is,

                                                             ORDERED

 

                                                                      that the complaint case no.69/2015 is succeeds in part on contest against the Op.

Op-Bank is directed to return all documents to the complainant. Op-Bank is also directed to pay sum Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) as compensation and Rs.5,000/-(Five thousand) as litigation cost within a month of this date of order.

Let copies of the order be supplied free of cost.           

           Dictated & Corrected by me

                               

                      Member                                                     Member                                    President                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     District Forum                                                                                             District Forum

               Paschim Medinipur                                                                                     Paschim Medinipur