HON’BLE MR. SUDEB MITRA, PRESIDING MEMBER 

Order No. : 24

Date : 11.10.2023

         Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement dated 13.08.2021 dismissed ex-parte against the OP, passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Birbhum on 13.08.2021 in CC/113/2019, the complainant of CC/113/2019, Mousumi Dey (Das) has preferred this Appeal before this Commission on the grounds that are reflected below.

          It is pressed in the MOA by the Appellant/complainant that the impugned judgement is a glaring example of non-application of judicial mind and improper interpretation of relevant law resulted in unjust dismissal of CC/113/2019 by the concerned Ld. DCDRC, Birbhum.

            It is also reflected in the MOA of the Appeal here by the appellant while assailing the impugned judgement of CC/113/2019 in her filed MOA, as the other ground for filing this Appeal against the impugned judgement and order of CC/113/2019, pronounced on 13.08.2021, that the Ld. DCDRC, Birbhum failed to appreciate the deficiency in service caused by the OP side of CC/113/2019 towards the appellant/complainant of the said complaint case, Mousumi Dey (Das) by not holding that the OP violated rules and regulations in causeing and effecting repayment of loan amount and in selling on hold of Rs. 8,20,000/- from the appellant/complainant’s personal account vide Savings Bank Account No. 38631422968 and it was so done without any legal basis to get realization of the residual dues of ‘Auto Loan’ taken by the appellant/complainant’s husband Late Sugata Das, during his life time.

            It is also reflected by the appellant/complainant in her filed MOA while assailing the impugned judgement of CC/113/2019 dated 13.08.2021 that the Ld. Commission, Birbhum had pronounced a cryptic judgement, without appreciating the argument of the complainant/appellant, and that judgement is devoid of legal basis and it was pronounced so on wrong assessment that the complainant/appellant Mousumi Dey (Das) stands responsible personally to pay the debt taken by her husband i.e. Sugata Das, during his life time from the OP/Respondent.

            It is also asserted from the appellant’s end, while assailing the impugnedjudgement of CC/113/0/2019 dated 13.08.2021, by filing of MOA in this Appeal that the appellant/complainant has preferred this Appeal on further ground that the impugned judgement has not reflected anything as direction that after the adjustment of loan amount, the OP of the CC/113/2019 should have to permit the complainant to operate her saving account in the concerned Bolpur Branch of the OP and the Ld. Commission  should have to determine and hold that since the complainant was neither the co-borrower with the husband Sugata Das in respect of the loan taken by him from the OP nor was she the ‘guarantor’  of such loan on behalf of Sugata Das,  since deceased, so the OP’s deduction of money from the complainant/appellant’s Savings Account in the OP’s Bank concerned Bolpur Branch is unjustified.

            By filing the instant MOA the appellant/complainant Mousumi Dey (Das) has preferred the instant Appeal before this Commission on 10.09.2021 against the impugned judgement pronounced on 13.08.2021 dismissing the complaint ex-parte against the OP of CC/113/0/2019.

            The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant Mousumi Dey (Das) of CC/113/0/2019 has savings account No. 38631422968 under the OP/Respondent Bolpur Branch of State Bank of India.

            It is the specific case of the complainant that her husband Sugata Das, since deceased had taken an Auto Loan vide Loan Account No. 37896823408 with limit of Rs. 8,20,000/- in order to purchase the vehicle being No. WB 48 C 4737 from the concerned OP Branch of State Bank of India/Respondent. It is forthcoming from the complainant/appellant’s contention that the said car was covered with insurance i.e. SBI Rinn Raksha Plan vide Policy No. 70000018311 and as per terms of that policy, in the event of death of the life assured, during the policy term, the sum assured applicable for the month and year of death, as per sum assured schedule is payable, provided all uptodate premium upto the date of death of the sum assured are fully paid and the nominee of that policy was the complainant.

            It is the specific case of the complainant that her husband had unnatural death on 17.05.2019 and the OP Bank sent her a letter dated 17.06.2019 vide letter no RACC BOLPUR/2019-2020 requesting her to liquidate that loan within 7 days and the OP Bank sent her another letter being NO. RACC BOLPUR/2019-20/14 dated 26.07.2014, asking her to deliver the possession of the vehicle with key and accessories, its relevant papers for registration, insurance policy of that car to enable the OP to dispose of the said car for realization of the dues of such loan in respect of the car. 

            It is the specific case of the complainant that after taking repossession of the vehicle from the complainant forcibly and illegally on 22.08.2019 on obtaining her signatures on some paper by exertion of under influence upon the complainant, the OP could get the control of her deceased husband’s car illegally.

            The complainant asserts that against her savings account No. 38631422968 run by her in the OP Bank, she had issuedwo cheques No. 344339 dated 18.11.2019 of Rs. 3,30,000/- and 344400 dated 18.11.2019 of Rs. 2,00,000/- to withdraw Rs. 5,30,000/- and on presentation of the same through her banker UBI Bolpur Branch before/upon the OP Bank for encashment, the OP Bank illegally dishnoured those two cheques on the ground of insufficiency of fund in her savings account No. 38631422968, in spite of the fact that on that date of presentation of those two cheques, the balance of the savings account of the complainant’s concerned savings account was Rs. 5,44,288/-.

            It is the contention of the complainant that on being asked by the complainant over this issue, the OP Bank contended in reply that Rs. 8,20,000/- was set hold by the Bank Authority to recover the loan amount that was taken by her husband as Auto Loan being Loan Account No. 37896323408, though the complainant was neither the co-borrower with Sugata Das i.e. her husband, since deceased nor the guarantor of the said loan taken against that loan account.

            The complainant has contended that in spite of getting her notice, the OP has deducted Rs. 3,21,217/- on 24.03.2020 during the lock down period, from her personal Saving Account NO. 38631422968 on 24.03.2021. It is also the specific contention of the complainant that her prayer before the Ld. DCDRC to grant her prayer to operate her aforestated Savings Account and to direct the OP to credit Rs. 3,21,217/- that was deducted by the OP from her said account was not weighed and assessed and for that she had filed CC/113/0/2019 before the Ld. DCDRC, Birbhum.

            It is pressed from the complainant that the impugned judgement, pronounced in the CC/113/0/2019, suffers from incorrection for the reasons, so reflected in her MOA in this Appeal, as transpired  in the impungned judgement dated 13.08.2021 judgement which she pressed for settings aside.

Point for consideration

            Now it is to be ascertained as to whether the instant Appeal is legally entertainable or sustainable in the eye of law and whether  the impugned judgement of CC/113/2019 dated 13.08.2021 deserves to be set aside, as prayed for by the complainant/appellant on the points as prayed for her from her end by agitating the anamolies is the impugned judgement pointed out by the appellant by her filing the MOA in this Appeal as described in the body of this judgement. It is to be determined, on the contrary, as to whether the impugned judgement of CC/113/2019 dated 13.08.2021 deserves positive consideration as legally unassailable.

Decision with reasons

            It appears from the materials on record that CC/113/0/2019 was disposed of ex-parte and dismissed ex-parte without cost, against the OP Bank of the said complaint case without cost, on 13.08.2021.

            It transpires that against that judgement of dismissal of the complaint 113/0/2019, present Appeal was filed on 10.09.2021. So, it was filed within the time permitted as per time stipulation regulated by the relevant provisions of the C.P. Act of 2019.

            It appears from the available materials the impugned judgement dated 13.08.2021 passed in CC/113/0/2019 that the Ld. Concerned Commission, Birbhum had taken into consideration correctly basing on the available evidence and documentary materials that the complainant’s husband Sugata Das had taken Auto Loan vide car loan Account No. 37896823408 against Policy No. 70000018311 with limit of Rs. 8,20,000/- and it is the specific finding of the Ld. Commission of Birbhum that as the said husband of the complainant could not pay up the said loan amount during his life time, so after his death, the complainant (being the appellant of this Appeal arsising from CC/113/0/2019) is liable to pay the debt and for that there was no deficiency on the part of the OP Bank for recovery of the loan from the complainant.

            This appears further from the available materials on record that the Ld. Commission, Birbhum further appreciated that the OP Bank was justified set to hold Rs. 8,20,000/- to recover the loan amount which was taken by the complainant/appellant’s husband as Auto Loan being Loan Account No. 37896823408.

            It appears from the available materials on record, in the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary coming from the end of the complainant/appellant and also in the presence of sufficient legally unchallenged materials on record, submitted from the end of the OP/Respondent Bank in this Appeal that Sugata Das i.e. the husband of the Appellant/Complainant Mousumi Dey (Das) had taken a House Building Loan of Rs. 29,00,000/- via HBL Loan Account No. 37240972660 besides one car loan of Rs. 8,20,000/- via car loan Account No. 37896823408 and the said House Building Loan was covered by State Bank of India Life Insurance, namely, Rinn Suraksha via Policy No. 70000018311.

            It is forthcoming from the available materials on record that the complainant/appellant’s husband Sugata Das had an unnatural death on 17.05.2019 and at that point of time those loan accounts of both the HBL  and also the Auto Loan amount were not repaid and were outstanding.

            In the absence of any cogent evidence in the contrary and to the contrary, in the presence of unchallenged documents of the OP/respondent it traspired that after the demise of the complainant’s/Apellant’s husband Sugata Das, it is forthcoming that the complainant was the nominee and one the legal heirs of Sugata Das and as per terms of Rinn Suraksha, as nominee of Sugata Das, complainant/appellant was issued a cheque in her favour by State Bank of India Life Insurance after clearing up all the dues in respect of HBL and the State Bank of India handed over certain substainable amount to her and the home loan account was fully liquidated from the proceeds of the Rinn Suraksha claim. No documentary proof is forthcoming to refute this claim of the OP/Respondent. It is also the specific claim of OP/Respondent that a separate savings account was opened for the complainant/appellant in the OP Branch of State Bank of India in favour of the complainant and the Bank credited the balance amount of Rs. 7,25,967/- in favour of the complainant in that account No. 38631422968.

            In this case, it is also appearing from the available materials on record, in the absence of any iota of evidence of any form available from the case record that there was default car loan account in respect of the vehicle taken on loan by the appellant/complainant’s husband Sugata Das and since the appellant/complainant as the legal heirs/wife of Sugata Das, since deceased, could not repay the loan so as a result, that the said car was seized and put on auction by the OP, as per its procedure. No iota of evidence, even prima facie is forthcoming to hold that there was commission of any irregularity in such auction and it appeared that the said car was auctioned at a certain amount but after realization of certain amount of car loan by auction sale still Rs. 3,21,217/- was found outstanding in the car loan account as on 24.03.2020 and the said outstanding dues were debited from the complainant’s savings account No. 38631422968 to liquidate the car loan account of the complainant’s husband Sugata Das, since complainant is the wife and legal heir of Sugata Das, since deceased.

            So, this can be taken into consideration that prior to 24.03.2020, from the appellant/complainant’s account two cheques, as referred in the complaint, were intended to be encashed amounting to Rs. 3,30,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- on 20.11.2019 and the said two cheques both were not entertainable for insufficient fund in those account since at that time, this can legitimably be inferred, the amount remaining in those account were kept and set in hold for liquidation of pending car loan of the complainant’s husband Sugata Das.

            In the presence of the available materials on record coming from the end of the OP/Respondent, in the absence of any cogent evidence of any form to assail and naturalize the contentions of the OP/Respondent, I feel inclined to hold that there remains nothing legally significant to entertain the appellant’s contention in this Appeal and thereby to disturb the findings reached by the Ld. DCDRC, Birbhum in CC/113/0/2019 specially when the complainant of CC/113/0/2019 i.e. the present appellant could not show that on 20.11.2019 when she had issued two cheques, as described in this judgement, for encashment from her Savings Account No. 38631422968, the said total amount were free from any encumbrances and entirely  and exclusively belonging to her free from being set hold against a bigger amount for liquidation of car loan account of her husband Sugata Das. No iota of documentary proof to vindicate the stand of the complainant/appellant on this aspect appears or exists to be legally appreciable and entertainable. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the findings reached in CC/113/0/2019 by the Ld. DCDRC, Birbhum on 13.08.2021.

Hence, this Appeal fails.

Accordingly, it is

                                                Ordered

That the instant Appeal A/6/2021 pressed by the Appellant/Complainant  Mousumi Dey (Das) to assail the judgement of CC/113/20219 pronounced, ex-parte on 13.08.2021 as dismissed by the Ld. DCDRC, Birbhum is dismissed on contest but without cost.

The judgement of CC/113/2019 dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. DCDRC, Birbhum stands affirmed on contest in this Appeal.

Let copies of judgement of this Appeal A/6/2021, be furnished, free of cost, to the contesting parties of this Appeal forthwith on observance of all relevant formalities, as determined by the C.P. Act, 1986.