IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/55/2017
Date of Filing: 07.04.2017 Date of Final Order: 29.08.2018
Complainant: Bagola Prosad Chatterjee
Proprietor of Chatterjee Construction,
S/O:Lt. Bhabani Prosad Chatterjee,
Residing at Cossimbazar Bhatpara,
P.O: Cossimbazar Raj, P.S. Berhampore
Dist.: Murshidabad, PIN 742102
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Branch Manager, Katabagan Branch,
State Bank of India at Bhakuri, P.O.: Chaltiya,
P.S.: Berhampore Dist.: Murshidabad. PIN 742165
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri Siddhartha Sankar Dhar
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri Jayanta Bagchi
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati…………………......... President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty ……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Bagola Prosad Chatterjee, proprietor of Chatterjee Construction (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Katabagan Branch (here in after referred to as the OP) alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant took a sum of Rs.9, 75,000/- as loan from the OP but failed to repay the sum in time, resulting the loan account turned into NPA. The OP filed Mortgage Suit being No. 224 of 2014 before the Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Berhampore and ultimately the Complainant paid the entire loan amount with interest and received ‘’no dues certificate’’ from the OP. On 10.11.2016 the Complainant went to the OP and found that the name of the Complainant was still in the CIBIL. The Complainant requested the OP to remove his name from the CIBIL of the Bank but the OP did not respond, so the Complainant served a notice through his Advocate on 20.11.2016 upon the O.P. but the OP did not take any step for removal of his name from the CIBIL. The Complainant prayed for a direction upon the OP for removal of his name from the CIBIL of the Bank in connection with his loan account No. 11694427882.
The OP put his appearance and filed written version on 18.07.2017 inter alia stating that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no cause of action against the OP and the Complainant is not a consumer under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The OP asserted that the Complainant liquidated his CC loan being No. 11694427882 to the Bank on compromise and the Bank issued no dues certificate on 19.11.2014. The CIBIL site Bank shows the status of NPA account holder. Even the NPA account holders liquidates his loan by way of compromise the said noting shall not be removed from the CIBIL site only it will be shown settlement. Here the Complainant was a defaulter and he had violated the terms and conditions of the loan and failed to regularize loan account in spite of repeated requests. As a result, the loan account of the Complainant had turned into a NPA account. The Bank issued no dues certificate and closed the CC account of the Complainant and as such there is no negligence or any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
On the basis of the above versions, the 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 has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decisions with reasons
Point No.1
The Ld. Advocate of the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer of the OP as he hired services of the OP by opening a cash credit account being No. 11694427882. It is argued that the OP Bank is duty-bound to remove the name of the Complainant from the CIBIL of the Bank as the Complainant repaid the entire loan amount with interest and received no dues certificate. It is urged that there is consumer dispute between the parties.
In reply the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the Complainant is not a consumer as he took cash credit loan for commercial purpose. It is argued that the term consumer excludes hiring/ availing of services for any commercial purpose.
We have gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence of both parties and documents filed by the Complainant. We have also considered the submission of both sides. Admittedly the Complainant hired the services of the OP by taking a cash credit loan in connection with account No. 11694427882. The term consumer excludes hiring /availing of services for a consideration for any commercial purpose.
In the present case, the loan account of the Complainant was in connection with cash credit loan account. Thus it is clear that this is a case of hiring / availing of service of the OP for commercial purpose. In this respect, we have placed our reliance on a decision reported in 2018(2) CPR 130(NC) dated 12.02.2018.
The Complainant has not even asserted that he avails or hires services of the OP exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Therefore, it is clear that the Complainant availed/hired the services of the OP for commercial purpose
Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant is not a consumer in view of section 2(1) (d) of the CP Act, 1986.
Point Nos. 2,3&4
All the above points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and convenience. The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the OP is deficient in service for not removing the name of the Complainant from the CIBIL of the Bank in spite of repayment of loan account with interest.
In reply the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the Complainant is not a consumer and the OP has no deficiency in service as it issued no dues certificate to the Complainant.
We have considered the materials on record. We have already held that the Complainant is not a consumer. As the Complainant has failed to establish that he is a consumer in terms of the provision of the CP Act,1986. We find no justification to go into the merit on point Nos. 2-4. We held that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Reasons for delay
The complaint case No. 55/2017 was filed on 07.04.2017.
The case was admitted on 27.04.2017 and the OP filed written version on 18.07.2017. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in view of section 13(3A) of the CP Act, 1986 and the reasons for delay have been explained in day to day orders.
In the result the Complaint case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest without cost. This Final Order will not be a bar for getting appropriate relief by the Complainant against the OP before the appropriate Forum.
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.
