Order no.6   dated 7.7.15

            Parties are present . Manager, S.B.I. Balagarh Branch, in terms of earlier order is present before us. Today is fixed for argument. Accordingly, argument is heard in full . Order in final form follows as below :

            The case of the complainant, Suklal Dey in short is that he took loan more than ten years back and for repayment of the same he requested the Op to accept a sum of Rs.3.0 lakhs and for that purpose he deposited Rs.22099/- . It is alleged by the complainant that even upon acceptance of Rs.3.0 lakhs on 4.3.2013,the Op has refunded the same without reason. Thereafter, several correspondences were made between the parties in the matter of repayment but no result has been effected to . Ultimately, petitioner served notice dated 27.10.2014 through his learned Advocate Nepal Chandra Sen along with treatment document regarding ailing wife of the petitioner under registered post. No opportunity was given to the petitioner for settlement of the loan, rather harassment was caused to the complainant. Stating the case the complainant has come before us with a prayer for direction upon the oP to receive the loan amount after deducting subsidy on the ground of illness of the petitioner and his wife along with payment of compensation in terms of the prayers mentioned in the petition of complaint. In order to support the case some documents in Xerox copies namely Advocate’s letter dated 27.10.14 and dated 5.11.2014.

            OP contested the case by filing WV challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action on the ground that the repayment is on the verge of compromise stage and the Ops are very much cooperative in taking suitable action to that effect . Thus the case should be dismissed.

            Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed :

            ISSUES

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present form ?

2. If there is any cause of action for presentation of this case ?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

4. To what other relief or reliefs the complainant is entitled.

DECISION WITH REASON :

            Issues  no. 1 to 4

            All the issues are taken up together as those are interlinked each other.

            Learned Advocate for the complainant made his argument that there is no dispute as regard to the fact of settlement of loan  upon steps already taken by the complainant and accordingly, complainant is willing for making repayment of the same in terms of   compromise.

            Ld. Advocate for the Op through his argument draws our attention that initially the complainant submitted application in the Bank for amicable settlement by virtue of payment of Rs.3,60,000/- . But no such payment has been deposited nor even has made any confirmation towards the final settlement on compromise as proposed by the complainant. In view of the fact and circumstances learned Advocate for the oP claims that there is no act of deficiency on the part of OP/Bank. Thus the case should be dismissed.

            We have carefully considered the case very effectively on the basis of evidence adduced by both parties and it appears that this is a case of settlement of loan between the parties. There is noticeable steps of the OP Bank in order to rendering necessary cooperation to the complainant enabling him to take part in the amicable settlement. But the same is not materialized. The complainant had deposited Rs.3,00,000/- on 30.1.13 but the same he has  withdrawn on 4.3.13 . This conduct leads us to believe that the complainant is willing but to due to certain reason cannot make final settlement , may be for certain reason relating to medical cause as disclosed in his case. So, in question of deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant against the oP Bank , we do not find any cogent evidence for holding any decision in favour of the complainant and as a consequences thereof it is apparent before us that the petition of complaint is without cause of action. 

            Under the facts and circumstances of the case on the findings discussed hereinabove it is held and decided that there is no cause of action for raising allegation of deficiency in service against the op. As a result the case should fail.

                                                            Hence ordered

            That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.

            Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.