C.F. CASE No. : CC/2013/68
COMPLAINANT : Khabir Sk.
S/o Junab Sk.
Vill. Chapra, (B.D.O. Office para)
P.O. Banghaljee, P.S. Chapra,
Dist. Nadia
– Vs. –
OPPOSITE PARTY / OP: Branch Manager ,
United Bank of India
Chapra Branch,
Vill Chapra, Karimpur Road,
P.O. Banghaljee,
P.S. Chapra, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT
: SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 07th March, 2014
-: J U D G M E N T :-
The petitioner has filed the instant case against Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Chapra Branch, Krishnagar, Dist. Nadia under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The case of the petitioner:-
The petitioner decided to purchase the vehicle under Auto Passenger Fair Scheme and accordingly submitted an application form to the respective authority, i.e., society for self-employed youth. The project cost of Rs. 1,48,700/- where the OP had to finance Rs. 1, 04,090/- and the petitioner had to arrange Rs. 14,870/- from his own source and the balance amount of Rs. 29,740/- i.e., 20% of the project cost would be borne by the Government as subsidy. As per advice of the OP the petitioner bought a TATA Sumo Car bearing No. WB12A 3132 and entered into a hypothecation agreement with the OP on 18.01.2012. The OP intimated the registration authority, motor vehicle’s department regarding the hypothecation and also requested them to do the necessary endorsement in the registration certificates well as in the record. The authority as per the OP’s request repaired all the necessary documents and entered the name of the bank herein the OP in the registration certificate of the vehicle. But at the end the OP bank did not disburse the loan amount to the petitioner and as a result the petitioner had to arrange the full loan amount from outside sources for which he is now under tremendous financial crisis. The petitioner time and again request the OP to disburse the loan but the latter did not pay any heed to such request. Finding no other alternative the petitioner has come before this Forum for redressal with the following prayer.
- Direction upon the OPs to pay Rs. 1,48,700/- towards cost of the car along with all the documents of the loan.
- Direction to pay the petitioner a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for mental agony and pain along with litigation cost.
The OP appeared, but instead of filing written version they only informed the President of the Forum vide letter No. BSKP/1/2013 dtd. 02.08.13 the reasons for nonsanctioning of the loan.
The case was heard exparte against the OPs. From the pleadings, documents & evidence of the petitions. We frame the following issues.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No. 1: Is the petitioner a consumer under the OPs?
Point No.2: Does the OP suffer from deficiency in service?
Point No. 3: Is the petitioner entitled to get relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No. 1:
The petitioner is a consumer under OP because the OP entered into an agreement with an intention to pay the loan and if the loan would have been disbursed then the OP had to recover interest. So the loanee herein the petitioner would be a consumer. Again the complainant is beneficiary of such scheme of the Government and therefore, the complaint under the C.P. Act 1986 was maintainable.
Point No. 2 & 3:
The point No. 2 & 3 are taken up together for the sake of discussion and brevity. The OP (vide letter BSKP/1/2013) informed the forum that they couldn’t sanction the loan because the petitioner purchased an old car instead of a new car and as per the govt. rule BSKR loan can only be disbursed in case of a new car and not an old one. So the OP returned the govt. subsidy of Rs.29,740/- to the respective authority. Now the moot point of the case is that why the OP without checking the purchase documents of the vehicle sanctioned the loan provisionally and accordingly sent the papers to the R.T.O. for endorsement of the hypothecation in their records as well as in the registration certificate? Is it not a gross negligence on the part of the OP? Now after completing all the documentation process with the R.T.O. the OP cannot abstain from disbursing the loan to the petition and this decision of the Bank finds no legs to stand on. Hence the OPs are deficient in their services and the petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
DD paid is correct.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/13/68 be and the same is allowed on merit exparte against the OP. The OP is directed to pay Rs. 1,48,700/- (the cost of the car as loan if the petitioner is still in need of the money after receiving the consent from the petitioner. The OP bank is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- & litigation cost Rs. 2000/- within one month from the date of this order, i.d., the total amount of Rs. 12,000/- will carry an interest of 9% from the date of order till final payment. The petitioner is also directed to send the consent letter if he is at all in need of the money to the OP and filed the SR in the Forum.
Let a copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
