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

  CASE No.CC/170/2017  

 Date of Filing: 25.09.17                                     Date of Final Order: 17.01.19

Complainant:  Prabin Kumar Mishra

S/o Late Adhar Ch. Mishra

1/5/1 Maharaja Nanda Kumar Road

Saidabad, Khagra

PS-Berhampore

Pin-742103

-Vs-

Opposite Party: Branch Manager

United Bank of India

Khagra Branch

63 B.B. Sen Road. PO-Khagra

PS-Berhampore

Dist-Murshidabad

Pin-742103

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : In Person

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party         : Sri. Sankar Prasad Saha

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

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

                                     FINAL ORDER

Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.

This is a complaint U/S 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            One Prabin Kumar Mishra (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Khagra 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 along with his son and his wife took house building loan amounting Rs.20,00,00/- being account No.0488305909858 and on deposit of  security money of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Complainant used to pay EMI regularly. Subsequently, the Complainant along with his wife and his son took additional loan of Rs.4,00,000/- in connection with account No.0488305911242 and deposited Rs.1,00,000/- as security. The Complainant, his wife and son repaid the loan of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest on 06.09.17 and claimed return of security deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest but the OP informed them that the security deposited of Rs.1,00,000/- would not be refunded till final payment of the loan account No.0488305909858. The Complainant requested the OP to refund security of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest but of no result. Hence, the Complainant has filed the case praying for compensation of Rs.50,000/- against the OP.

The OP contested the case by filing written version on 06.02.18, contending that the case is not maintainable and the case is bad for defect of parties. The OP has submitted that the Complainant and his son Anupam Mishra took a loan of Rs.20,00,000/- by mortgaging the house property on 18.06.13 and during subsistence of the said loan they applied for enhancement of the amount for a further sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and accordingly it was granted and the borrowers deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards STDR as co-lateral security on 18.06.04 in favour of the Bank.

Thereafter, the Complainant repaid the entire loan amount  of Rs. 4,00000/-together with interest accrued there on but a total sum of Rs.19,07,853/- is due as on 25.01.18. As the said co-lateral security has been deposited towards the entire loan amount, the OP kept the said amount under the fixed deposit security for the good and better health of the loan amount. The Complainant has filed the case with some false allegations with a view to harass the OP. The OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

  On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :

Points for decision

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Point No.1

            The Complainant has submitted that he is a consumer as he along with his son and wife hired the services of the OP.

            Admittedly, the Complainant took house building loan from the OP and deposited colateral security amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. On careful consideration, 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.

 The Ld. Advocate for the  OP has not stated anything on this point

  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.

     .

Point Nos. 3&4

            The Complainant has submitted that he deposited Rs.1,00,000/- for a loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/- but the OP did not refund the said security amount with interest in spite of repayment of the loan amount Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest. It is argued that the OP has deficiency in service.

            In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the Complainant and his son took loan of Rs.20,00,00/- as house building loan on 18.06.13 and a further sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as house building loan on18.06.14.

            It is argued that the borrowers deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards STRD amount as co-lateral security on 18.06.14 and the OP is unable to release the said amount with interest as a sum of Rs.19,07,853/- is due as on 25.01.18.

     He argues that the OP is duty bound to adjust the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with accrued interest at the time of final repayment of house building loan. He submits that the OP has no deficiency in service.

            Admittedly, the Complainant was one of the borrowers in connection with a house building loan of Rs.20,00,00/- and the Complainant took additional amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as one of the borrowers from the OP on deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- as co-lateral security on 18.06.14.

            Admittedly, the Complainant and other borrowers repaid the top-up loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest but had not released the amount of colateral security of Rs.1,00,000/- and interest on the plea that entire house building loan amount has not been repaid.

            From the submission of the Complainant, it appears that the Complainant apprehended that the borrowers will not be able to get refund of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest but it is clear from the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the OP that the OP will adjust the said colateral security of Rs.1,00,000/- and its interest at the time of final repayment of the total loan amount of Rs.20,00,00/-.

            On a careful consideration over the materials on record and  the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant has not been able to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the OP as the OP has assured that the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and its accrued interest will be adjusted with the loan amount of Rs.20,00,00/-.

            We think that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 25.09.17 and admitted on 13.10.17. 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/170/2017 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.