West Bengal

Maldah

CC/94/2015

Ujjwal Saha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager , Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank. - Opp.Party(s)

Amar Kr. Das

29 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALDAH
Satya Chowdhury Indoor Stadium,DSA Complex.
PO. Dist.- Maldah
Web site - confonet.nic.in
Phone Number - 03512-223582
 
Complaint Case No. CC/94/2015
 
1. Ujjwal Saha
S/o Bhupati Bhushan Saha, Vill.-Bala Sahapur, Po.-Sahapur,
Malda
West Bengal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Branch Manager , Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank.
Vill.-Nagaswarpur, PO.-Sahapur
Malda
West Bengal
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Debi Prasad Mallik PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Nabanita Kar MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Amar Kr. Das, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Chhanda Barman, Advocate
Dated : 29 Nov 2016
Final Order / Judgement

                  Order No. 13 Dt. 29.11.2016         

This is an application U/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner Sri Ujjwal Saha praying for directing the O.Ps to pay him subsidy money of Rs. 40000/- principal money of Rs. 40000/-, 12% interest from 2011 to 2015, Rs.38400, loss of business and  harassment  of Rs. 100000/- in total Rs. 218400/- as compensation.                                                                        

          The case of the petitioner in short is that he took loan of Rs.200000/-with annual interest of 12%.  His A/c. No. is 5477300000656. The loan was sanctioned on 22.11.2008 and the terms of repayment was within five years, monthly installment of Rs.3200/- in 60 installments. The further case of the petitioner is that the Bank disbursed Rs.100000/- on 26,11,2008 in his Pass Book.  The petitioner deposited Rs. 70000/- in a fixed deposit scheme, A/c. No. RIP 5618 in the Bank of the O.P. on 14.11.2008 for three years and the date of maturity was 14.11.2011@9% p.a and the maturity value of the said amount was Rs.91423/. He paid Rs.48000/- by 15 installments.

          The further case of the petitioner is that in spite of that the Bank Authority demanded much more money from him. Though the Bank Authority took fixed amount and the installment money against the loan amount they demanded much more money for outstanding loan.  So he filed this case in this Forum praying relief as prayed for.

          The O.P. appeared and filed written statement denying all the material facts contending inter alia made in the claim petition against them and submitted that the petitioner files false case. He did not file all the documents. Subsidy amount of Rs.40000/- was disbursed to the petitioner in his A/c. No. 5477300000656 on the self-same date and they filed these documents in this Forum. The petitioner deposited margin money of Rs.20000/-. The petitioner did not pay the installments and failed to pay the loan amount the fixed deposited money and the money paid by the petitioner by installment and adjust and the reflection given in the accounts as per the banking rules. 1) They also filed the ledger extract of the petitioner being A/c. No. mentioned by the petitioner 2) Xerox Copy of transferred receipt Debit to D/Smb 769/08 dt. 26.11.2008 Ref. Ujjwal Saha Rs.100000/-, Xerox copy of transferred receipt Debit to                D/Smb/769/08 dt. 03.12.2008 Rs. 39836/-. 4) Xerox Copy of transferred receipt Debit Subsidy under B.S.K.P. to D/Smb/769 dt. 26.11.2008 Ref – Ujjwal Saha Rs.40000/-5) Xerox Copy of demand notice addressed to Ujjwal Saha dt.30.06.2013. 6) Xerox Copy of receipt credit SBG-7047 to D/Smb /769 dt.26.11.2008 Ref Ujjwal Saha Rs. 137415/-.  7. Xerox Copy of receipt Credit S/C to D/Smb/769 dt. 26.11.2008 Rs. 2300/-. 8 Xerox copy of receipt Credit STP to D/Smb 769 dt. 26.11.2008 Rs. 285/-.                                   

On the above cases of the parties the following issues are framed:-

  1. Whether the case 94/2015 is maintainable in its present form?
  2. Whether the case is barred by limitation?
  3. Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case?
  4. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
  5. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

:DECISION WITH REASONS::

Issue Nos. 1,2,3, 4 & 5

            All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration and also all these issues are interrelated and interdependent.      

          From the documents filed by the petitioner and the O.Ps it is crystal clear that the petitioner took loan from the said bank of Rs.200000/- on 22.11.2008 and the rate of interest was fixed Rs. 12%p.a. It is also admitted that the said petitioner agreed to pay Rs.3200/- monthly installments and it is also admitted the petitioner fixed Rs.70000/- on 14.11.2008 in RIP A/c No. 5618 on 14.11.2008 and the date of maturity was 14.11.2011 and the maturity value was Rs.91423/- @ interest 9% p.a.. The loan was sanctioned on 22.11.2008 and rate of interest was fixed Rs.12% and the petitioner failed to give installments to the Bank. The petitioner filed the old account book at the time of filing of this case and the petitioner admits in his petition that he paid only 15 installments of Rs.3200/- to the O.P. Bank. It is also reflected that the petitioner received notice sent by the O.P. Bank and the petitioner is aware that the interest along with the original amount of Rs. 59734/- up to 31.03.2013. The petitioner filed this case on 11.01.2016 but he was aware regarding the demand more than three years from the filing of the very suit. Petitioner was agreed to pay the monthly installments but he did not approach to the Bank Authority in time and as per the rules the petitioner made a fixed deposit of Rs.70000/- and the rate of interest was fixed Rs.9% p.a in the fixed deposited money.

          Ld.Advocate of the O.P. submits before the Forum that the Bank Authority deducted the amount from the RIP account when the incumbent petitioner failed to deposit monthly installments. From the documents it also reveals that the petitioner though received the papers from the Bank, there is new Pass Book but the petitioner did not submit the same in this Forum.

          It is crystal clear that the subsidy amount of Rs.40000/- has already been disbursed.

          The documents filed by the Bank Authority reflected that the authority deducted Rs.91423/- on 24.02.2012 and Rs. 45598/- on 19th February, 2011 and the total amount was deducted from the loan amount and interest and from the credit of the petitioner and at that time the petitioner was a due of Rs. 52287/-.

          This is a public money and the Bank disburse the money with interest as per the banking rules as per the guidelines of the RBI. The petitioner is not coming with the clean hands.

          Considering all these aspects we hold that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief and there is no deficiency on the part of the Bank and on the other hand the petitioner is not coming with a clean hand. So the case of the petitioner is dismissed.                      

           In the result, the claim case fails. 

           Court fee, paid is correct.

           Hence,                            ordered,

 that Malda D.F. C. Case No. 94/2015 be and the same is hereby dismissed  on contest against the O.Ps  without any order as to cost.  

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Debi Prasad Mallik]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Nabanita Kar]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.