In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.273/2011.
1) Shyamal Shankar Bhattacharya,
2) Saswati Bhattacharya.
Both residing at B-256, SurveyPark,
Santoshpur, Kolkata-75, P.S. Jadavpur. ----------- Complainants
---Versus---
1) Central Bank of India,
157A, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata-29, P.S. Gariahat.
2) Chairman, Central Bank of India,
Chander Mukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.
3) Mr. Pradeep Kumar, AGM & RM (Kolkata South),
Central Bank of India, 33, N.S. Road, Kolkata-1.
4) Mr. B.B. Prasad, C/O Central Bank of India,
157A, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata-29.
5) Mr. Tapas Mandal, Manager, Loans,
Central Bank of India,
157A, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata-29.
6) M/s Think-Tank Consultants Pvt. Ltd.
227A, Rash Behari Avenue, 1st Floor, Kolkata-19. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 18 Dated 30-09-2013.
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainants are also the Directors of a small closely held company viz. M/s Think-Tank Consultants Pvt. Ltd. which is being run by them for the purpose of livelihood only. The company does not have any Directors other than the complainants.
In Dec.2006 the said company required its Directors i.e. the complainants to provide collateral security by way of deposit of their NSCs to the company’s banker which is again the said Central Bank of India, Ballygunge Branch for availing of Demand Loan facilities for meeting urgent needs.
Complainants having appreciated the difficulty and the need for the livelihood through the company operators that required the Demand Loan agreed to provide their two sets of NSCs to the named bank on the conditions that the company will service the loan timely and on a regular basis and both the bank and the company will ensure that the loans / OD availed of from the bank against the NSCs of the complainants shall have to be settled before maturity of the documents to enable the complainants obtain the NSCs from the bank before maturity only so that the complainants can reinvest the proceeds available from the maturity of the NSCs as per Income Tax requirement.
On 13.12.06 the complainants informed in writing about the conditions of agreement to the company with an intimation to the o.p. no.1 by way of a copy of the letter given to them who acknowledged and agreed to abide by the conditions informed therein by the complainants.
Accordingly, on 15.12.06 the company had collected the NSC certificate from the complainants and deposited the same to the bank on the same day that were again acknowledged by the bank.
Complainants on a regular basis were monitoring whether the company was doing its part to service the debt timely and the same was found to be in order by the complainants till the 1st week of Oct. 2009 when the o.ps. were found to be not in a position to return the NSCs of the complainants against the company’s and/or of the complainants’ proposal to settle the loan. Before the maturity date falling due for one set of NSCs on 27.11.09, the complainants requested the company vide letter dt.2.11.09 for returning them at least the first set of NSCs after getting them released from the bank. The company accordingly informed the bank vide their letter dt.3.11.09 about the same and thereafter also informed verbally many times either to renew or to return the NSCs after settlement of its loan dues to be made separately and simultaneously on the basis of which only the company had been informing the bank repeatedly expressing its desire to settle the loan before maturity only.
The company was not allowed to settle the Demand Loan in the mean time since the bank was not in a position to return the NSVs in original to the complainants.
On receipt of the first information in writing about the loss and/or theft of the NSCs after almost one year, the complainants find that the company had made an FIR with Gariahat P.S.
The company promptly proposed to the o.ps. in writing to concern Lie Detection Tests on all parties involved in this regard including the complainants to determine the truth thereby determining parties who have lied mischievously for protecting vested interests illegally. The o.ps. had not only kept silent on this proposal for long but finally refused to do so which unambiguously proved that the o.ps. even after officially confirming to settle the compensation as recorded were running away from honoring their promises made officially underthe banner of a PSU Bank without shouldering the responsibility and accountability for the damages and losses caused to the complainants by their irresponsible and callous actions. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. no.1 had its their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.p. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. O.p. nos.2 to 6 did not contest the case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against them.
Decision with reasons:-
On perusal of the entire materials on record we find that o.p. no.6 has been made an o.p. in this case by the complainant himself of which complainant happens to be one of the Directors and all agreements were executed in between o.p. no.6 together with o.p. nos.1 to 5 and the complainant. But it is conspicuous to take note that complainant is not sure about his case and the instant case suffers from mis-joinder of parties although we find lapse on the part of Central Bank.
In view of the above findings we are constrained to hold that complainant has failed to substantiate and prove his case and as such, complainant is not entitled to get relief.
Hence ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against o.p. no.1 and ex parte without cost against o.p. nos.2 to 6.
