West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/147/2016

Mr.Paritosh kumar Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,SBI,Ulkunda Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Kr Acharya

29 Mar 2018

ORDER

The case of the complainant Mr. Paritosh Kr. Das, in brief, is that he applied for bank loan for his self-employment under PMGEP and Rs. 14,40,000/- was sanctioned including 35% subsidy i.e. Rs. 4,94,000/- will be given by the Government.

            It is the further case of the complainant that he had two loan A/c being No. 31752056300 and 31564520494 respectively. A/c No. 31752056300 is the cash credit and A/c No. 31564520494 is TM loan A/c having no drawing power. The O.P collected more interest/principle amount than they are entitled to get.

            It is the next case of the complainant that he filed a consumer case being No. CC No. 140/15 against the O.P but the O.P assured the complainant that they would settle both the A/c properly and as such the complainant withdrew the case and the said case has been disposed of on the basis of dismiss for non-prosecution. That the O.P settled the A/c of the complainant and issued no dues certificate in favour of the complainant, but they did not refund the complainant which he is entitled to get refund as per law. Hence this case.

            The O.P Bank was served notice and they appeared and prayed for time the filing W/V but thereafter backed from the case, and as such, the case was heard ex parte.

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial the complainant Paritosh Kumar Das has examined himself as P.W.1 and he submitted some documents in support of his case.

Heard argument of the Ld. Advocate/Agent of the complainant.

Evidently the complainant had two loan A/c being No. 31752056300 and 31564520494 respectively with the O.P Bank.

So, the complainant is consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P. Act.

O.P Bank has Branch Office at Ulkunda, Birbhum within jurisdiction of this Forum.

 

The total valuation of the case is Rs. 459713/- which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-. So, this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

It is the complainant that regarding selfsame matter he filed C.C case No. 140/15 against the O.P/Bank. The O.P/Bank assured that they would settled the matter and he had withdrew the case but in vain. Then the complainant has filed the present case. We find that no dues certificate was issued by the O.P/Bank on 18.03.2016 with assured that excess payment would be refunded.

So, it can be said that the cause of action of the case arose on 18.03.2016 and the present case filed on 09.12.2016 is not barred by limitation u/s 24 of the C.P Act.

We find that the complainant in his complainant and evidence stated that he applied for bank loan for his self-employment under PMGEP and Rs. 14,40,000/- was sanctioned including 35% subsidy i.e. Rs. 4,94,000/- will be given by the Government. He further stated that he had two loan A/c being No. 31752056300 and 31564520494 respectively. A/c No. 31752056300 is the cash credit and A/c No. 31564520494 is TM loan A/c having no drawing power. The O.P collected more interest/principle amount than they are entitled to get. He also stated that he filed a consumer case being No. CC No. 140/15 against the O.P but the O.P assured the complainant that they would settle both the A/c properly and as such the complainant withdrew the case and the said case has been disposed of on the basis of dismiss for non-prosecution.

We find that it is the case of the complainant that O.P/Bank had been paid the subsidy amount of Rs. 494000/- on 23.09.2011 but they did not adjust the amount for a long time. The subsidy amount was fixed at 0% interest on 23.09.2011 for term of 36 months and subjected to no interest will be claimed on the loan amount, but since the date of subsidy amount allotted interest has been imposed on the loan amount. That as such the complainant is entitled to get interest on subsidy amount since 23.09.2011 to 23.09.2014 i.e. Rs. 230128/- + further interest since 23.09.2014 till realization.

We find from the F.D certificate dated 13.09.11 that subsidy amount of Rs. 494900/- was kept in term deposit for the period 23.09.2011 to 23.09.2014 i.e. for 36 months in 0% P.A.

We have already mentioned that by letter dated 18.03.2016 O.P Bank has informed the complainant that excess interest and other charges was erroneously debited by the Bank has been refunded to the borrower.

So, it is clear that certainly the complainant is entitled to get interest for deposit of Rs. 494900/- for 3years i.e. Rs. 230128.50p with 5.7% P.A. (as claimed and as about savings interest) from 23.09.2014 to till realization.

We find that it is the further case of the complainant that O.P also collected Rs. 26478/- as court fees and advocate’s fees but they have no case instituted against the complainant before the any tribunal,

 

except a pre-litigation case before the Lok Adalat, where court fees are not required and as such it is clear the O.P has collected the money by using unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled to get back the aforesaid amount with interest. 

It appears from the copy of the petition submitted by O.P SBI, Ulkunda Branch, before Lok Adalat Bench, Rampurhat being pre-litigation case No. 465/13, copy of the notice of the same and ordered passed by the Ld. Lok Adalat on 22.12.13 so that the matter could not be settled.

In Lok Adalat case, there is no provision of submitting any court fees by the petitioner/complainant and no advocate is also necessary proceed with such case.

No other document is forthcoming before the Forum that the O.P Bank took shelter of any other Court or Tribunal.

So, it is clear that demand of Rs. 26478/- as court fee and advocate fee does not stand on scrutiny.

Accordingly the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 26478/- with 6%P.A since 14.08.14 till realization, which is illegally debited by the O.P Bank.

It is the further case of the complainant that by sending demand notice dated 28.03.14 the O.P Bank claimed Rs. 623639/- as outstanding. But they compelled the complainant to deposit Rs. 802011/- on 25.02.2015 which is excessive and they collected Rs. 143107/- more than the actual dues O.P is entitled to refund back Rs. 143107/- more than the actual dues.

Copy of the Bank statement of the complainant dated 11.05.15 shows that the complainant paid Rs. 802011/- to the O.P Bank and loan account was closed on that date.

The complainant has filed said demand notice.

The complainant Paritosh Kr. Das on oath stated that as per demand notice dated 28.03.2014 the O.P Bank claimed Rs. 623639/- but they realize Rs. 802011/- on 25.02.15 and thereby collected excess Rs. 143107/-.

The O.P Bank has not challenged the said testimony of the complainant by cross examining him or by adducing any evidence.

In view of the ruling reported in IV2006CPJ 2013(NC) wherein a complaint case the complainant filed an affidavit by way of evidence but the O.Ps neither filed any evidence by way of affidavit nor cross examined the deponent. Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that allegation of the complainant remained uncontroverted and in absence of any counter affidavit case of the complainant stands prove.

Considering overall matter into consideration and materials on record and unchallenged testimony of the complainant we are constrained to hold the complainant is entitled to get back Rs. 143107/- with 6% interest from 25.02.15 till realization.

 Accordingly the case is allowed in part.

Proper fees have been paid.

 

 

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 147/2016 be and the same is allowed on ex parte against O.P  Bank with cost  of Rs. 2000/-.

The O.P SBI, Ulkunda Branch is directed to pay Rs.230128.50p with 5.7% P.A.as subsidy from the date 23.09.14 to till realization. The O.P Bank is also directed to pay Rs.143107/- with 6% interest since 25.02.15 till realization and Rs. 26478/- with 6%P.A since 14.08.14 till realization. Complainant is not entitled to get any other compensation.

 All such payments shall be made within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and procedure.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.