DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No. 48 of 2015
Date of filing: 13.02.2015 Date of disposal:16.06.2016
Complainant: Sudeb Ghosh, S/o. Late Shankar Prasad Ghosh, residing at Kalyanpur, Kalna
Road, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Burdwan.
-VERSUS-
Opposite Party: 1. Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ganj Branch, Burdwan,
Pin-713141.
2. Regional Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Durgapur, Nachan Road,
District-Burdwan, Pin-713213.
3. Dhrubojyoti Neogi, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional Office,
Benachity, Nachan Road, Durgapur, Burdwan, Pin-713213.
Present : Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kr. Mandal
Hon’ble Member : Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Ashish Banerjee.
Appeared for the Opposite Parties: Ld. Advocate Jayanta Koner.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the complainant for an award directing the O.Ps. to close the cash credit account being No.047910000420 forthwith, to issue no dues certificate, to pay Rs.38,000/- as compensation and cost of the case to the complainant.
The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant runs a business of retail sale of medicine running in the name and style of M/s. Kalimata Medical Hall at Agricultural Firm, No.2 Gate, Kalna Road, Burdwan. The said shop is the only source of earning of livelihood of the complainant and he himself runs the business and there is no employee in said business. The
(2)
complainant obtained cash credit loan from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ganj Branch being Cash Credit A/c. No.047910000420 for the purpose of running his business on 12.7.2008. The case credit limit was Rs.75,000/- only. The loan was granted against the security of a fixed deposit of Rs.79,084/-. Though the monthly turnover of the complainant was low, to the best of his abilities the complainant tried to make regular repayments in the loan account initially. But at a later stage there was a downfall for a certain period and accordingly the repayment rate suffered. Inspite of request of the complainant, the bank authority did not renew the loan account and thereby the complainant lost the drawing ability from the said account and the repayments were further affected. Ultimately, the account was declared NPA. Inspite of several requests the O.Ps. did not accommodate the complainant. The complainant got a notice to appear before the National Lock Adalat on 6.12.2014, for settlement. The complainant visited the Lock Adalat but due to huge numbers of cases the Lock Adalat could not start functioning in time. The matter in dispute was not placed before the Lock Adalat on said date but the O.Ps. made a discussion with the complainant about the loan account and during the course of bilateral discussion the complainant expressed that he had capacity to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- only as full and final settlement of the claim of the bank. Ultimately, after discussion it was settled that on payment of Rs.25,000/- only at a time the loan account will be closed and the claim of the bank shall be settled fully and finally. In said discussion the O.P. No.3 and some other responsible members of the O.P. joined and the O.P. No.3 wrote down in a chit of paper the terms of settlement and handed over the same to the complainant. The complainant left the place of Lock Adalat agreeing to pay such Rs.25,000/- on good faith and he after taking a time about two weeks deposited said sum of Rs.25,000/- at a time on 18.12.2014 in said cash credit account and requested the bank authority to close the loan account, to issue him no dues certificate and to release the fixed deposit of Rs.79,064/- which was kept as a security but the O.Ps. did not pay any heed and they did not give any respect to the terms of settlement made on 6.12.2014. Thereafter, the complainant through his Ld. Advocate Mr.Ashish Banerjee issued a notice to the Branch Manager of the O.P. Bank, requesting him to settle the loan account within seven days as per terms of the compromise
(3)
made on 6.12.2014. Inspite of service of said notice the O.Ps. did not pay any heed. For deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the O.Ps., the complainant suffered business loss to the extent of Rs.10,000/- and other costs and expenses totaling Rs.38,000/-. Hence, this case with the prayer as mentioned above.
The O.Ps. contested this case by filing written version while stating inter-alia that the case is not maintainable, the complainant is not the consumer, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case and the complainant has no cause of action to file this case. It has been further stated by this O.Ps. that the complainant is a commercial customer of the O.Ps., the O.Ps. are Indian Nationalized Bank, accordingly the case is not maintainable, the complainant took loan of Rs.75,000/- from the O.Ps. on 12.7.2008 in the name of M/s. Kalimata Medical Hall of which Sudeb Ghosh (complainant) was the proprietor who deposited and hypothecated the stock of the goods and medicines of the Medical Hall and deposited CDR vide No.TDR 3779592 dated 28.11.2014 for Rs.79,064/-, the complainant after taking loan did not turn up the loan account properly and as per agreement the complainant did not deposit stock statement in every month, accordingly the loan account was declared as NPA on 31.12.2011, on several times the O.P. No.1 requested the complainant to repay the outstanding balance of the loan account but the complainant did not pay the same, with an intention to dispose of the matter the O.Ps. submitted an application for placing the same before the Lock Adalat to be held on 6.12.2014and on the basis of the notice issued by the Lock Adalat the complainant appeared at the place of Lock Adalat on 6.12.2014, due to some unavoidable circumstances, the matter was not placed before the Lock Adalat but on the said date the complainant requested the O.Ps. to continue the loan account, the O.P. No.2 advised the complainant to pay Rs.25,000/- and to deposit the stock statement within seven days and to continue the loan account, following such advice the complainant deposited Rs.25,000/- in said loan account and the loan account was reopened, the O.Ps. never asked the complainant to pay Rs.25,000/- as full and final payment, no such settlement was made on said date and the O.Ps. never agreed to close the loan account on receiving Rs.25,000/- only as full and final settlement. It is, therefore, claimed by these O.Ps. that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
(4)
DECISION WITH REASON
To prove his case the complainant has relied upon the photocopies of some documents which are loan sanctioned letter dated 12.7.2008, notice being No.4297/14, a slip showing payment of Rs.850/-, letter dated 11.12.2014, receipt showing payment of Rs.25,000/-, the lawyer’s letter dated 21.1.2015 and CDR being No.TDR 3779592.
We carefully perused the documents on which the complainant has relied upon and the contents of the pleadings. From the pleadings it is clear that the complainant has prayed for an award directing the O.Ps. to close the cash credit account No. 047910000420, to issue no dues certificate and to pay a sum of Rs.38,000/- to him only on the basis of the oral agreement dated 6.12.2014. The oral agreement as claimed by the complainant has not been admitted by the O.Ps. They have only stated that a discussion was made in between the complainant and the O.Ps. and in said discussion a decision was taken that the cash credit loan account which was declared as NPA would be reopened on deposit of Rs.25,000/- by the complainant.
As the complainant has relied upon the alleged agreement dated 6.12.2014, he has liability to prove strictly that such agreement was made and in the agreement it was settled that on payment of Rs.25,000/- by the complainant the O.Ps. shall close the account. In the Para-3 of the complaint petition the complainant has admitted that after the discussion on 6.12.2014 the O.P. No.3 wrote down in a chit of paper, the terms of settlement and handed over the same to the complainant. The complainant had enough scope to produce the said chit of papers in which the terms of conditions was written by the O.Ps. The complainant has failed to produce such chit of papers before this Forum. The documents which have been filed by the complainant in this case is not sufficient to prove that a settlement was made on 6.12.2016 in between the parties to this case and in said meeting it was settled that the complainant would pay only Rs.25,000/- as full and final payment to repay the outstanding balance of the cash credit account. The complainant has failed to adduce better and corroborated evidence to prove the settlement on 6.12.2014 as claimed by the complainant. So, we are of the opinion
(5)
that the complainant has failed to discharge the onus lying upon him and accordingly the complainant has failed to prove the settlement dated 6.12.2014 as claimed.
In the above premises the complainant is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Hence, the case fails.
Fees paid is correct. Hence it is
Ordered
that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Pankaj Kr. Sinha)
Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
