IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

             CASE No.  CC/183/2017.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

 02.11.17                                         10.11.17                               03.04.19      

Complainant: M/S Bittu Food Products, Bikash Jain

S/o Kalidas Jain, Sakin, Badurtala

 PO&PS-Jiaganj, Dist-Murshidabad,

Pin-742123

-Vs-

Opposite Party: Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Jiaganj Branch,

Branch Code-1870,

Jiaganj Main Road,

                        PO&PS-Jiaganj, Dist-Murshidabad,

                        Pin-742123

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Jaydeep Misra.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party         : None.

                       Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                              

                                          Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

  Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay, Member.

  This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            One Mr Bittu Jain proprietor of M/S Bittu Food Products (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Branch Manager, State Bank of India (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:

            One Mr. Bitty Jain running a Chanachur business in the name and style, M/S Bittu Food Products for his livelihood and for this purpose he took a term loan of Rs.50,000/- bearing account No.33459332804 and cash credit loan bearing account No. 34354874112 whose limit was Rs.45,000/- from the OP Bank in the year 2013 after depositing all the relevant documents. It has been agreed between the parties that for the purpose of term loan, the OP Bank will take 10.5% interest per annum and for the purpose of cash credit loan the OP Bank will claim interest @ 11.7% per annum. But all of a sudden when the Complainant received account statement on 20.08.17, he found that total Rs.57,500/- has debited from his term loan account as charge of CGTMSE annual fees and Rs.51,750/- has been debited from his cash credit loan account as CGTMSE annual fees. Noticing this, the Complainant on 21.08.17 and 27.08.17 made two complaints before the OP Bank authority for return of the aforesaid debited amounts. But all went in vain.

            Finding no other alternative, the Complainant filed the instant case before this Forum for appropriate relief.                                                                                                               The OP after due service of notice did not turn up, so, the case proceeded ex-parte against the OP.

            Now the question arises whether the Complainant is a consumer and he is entitled for the relief as prays for.

Decision With Reasons

            On overall evaluation of the argument made before us by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and critical appreciation of the material evidence on record, it is evident that undoubtedly, the Complainant had opted a term loan of Rs.50,000/- and cash credit loan of Rs.45,000/- only from the OP Bank..

It is the version of the Complainant that he has term loan and cash credit loan with the OP bank for running his business. Therefore , it is clear that the loan was for commercial purpose. The complainant  has asserted that his business is his only means of livelihood  but he has not even asserted that he used to run his business by means of self employment.  In the circumstance , we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is not a consumer in terms of Section 2(1)(d) (ii)  of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            According to the Complainant he had never given his consent for CGTMSE. We would like to point out that the Complainant was ready to pay the loan amount in full with its interest if the OP would have communicated for the CGTMSE annual fees beforehand.

It is evident from the Letter of Arrangement  that credit guarantee under CGTSI scheme to be covered wherever  applicable and the same has been signed  by the complainant .

            Considering the facts and circumstances of the case  we  find no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P as the complainant has already agreed  for  the credit guarantee scheme . Moreover, the complainant has failed to establish that he is a consumer u/s 2(1)(d) (ii)  of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            Based on the above discussion , we think that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

Reason for Delay

            The Case was filed on 02.11.17 and admitted on 10.11.17. 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.CC183/2017 be and the same is hereby  dismissed   exparte  against the O.P. 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.