This appeal is preferred against the Final Order dated 26.02.2020 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Uttar Dinajpur in CC No 48 of 2018. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the Appellant/Complainant Ashok Das registered a Consumer Complaint on 08.08.2018 to the score that being a scheduled caste person he obtained a subsidy loan of Rs. 20,000/- from Central Bank of India, Raiganj Branch through Raiganj Municipality. The Central Bank of India after sanctioning the loan Rs. 10,000/- was credited into the loan account of the Complainant bearing account No. 3120320469 on 27.04.2021. The said Bank also advised the Complainant to open a fixed deposit account of rest Rs. 10,000/- bearing No. 3122577057 for the period of eight years and the maturity date was fixed on 14.05.2019. He was told that as the 50% of the loan amount was kept in FD account and for that reason, he would not pay any amount towards the said loan amount but in the year 2016 one Bank employee of Central Bank of India came to his house and told him that there was pending huge amount as dues as the Complainant could not pay the installments amount. On 22.12.2017 he came to know that from his savings passbook account Rs. 3,000/- was debited and the fixed deposit was discharged at Rs. 17,873. The Complainant then submitted a Written Complaint to the Central Bank of India for return of the said Rs. 3,000/- which was debited from his account and to clear the fixed deposit discharged amount of Rs. 17,873/- but his prayer was turn down. He referred the matter to the Consumer Affairs Department at Raiganj and the Consumer Affairs Department also admitted to solve the problem but the Bank Authority did not turn up before the Consumer Affairs Department and for that reason he has registered the instant Consumer Complaint. The Consumer Complaint was contested by the Central Bank of India and contended that the Complaint availed financial assistance from the Bank to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and there was no subsidy provision in the said loan. The said loan amount was sanctioned for emergency requirement and earn installments a fixed deposit amount of Rs. 10,000/- was opened in his name for the period of eight years. The Complainant never paid any single installment against the said loan and as a consequence the loan amount with interest came to Rs. 20,873/- and in spite of repeated reminder the Complainant did not repay the loan amount and to adjust the said outstanding loan amount the Bank was compelled to close the FD account and the close amount of Rs. 17,642/- and the rest amount Rs. 3,231/- was adjusted from his savings bank account and there was no fault on their part and as such the case was liable to be dismissed. Ld. Forum after recording the evidences and after hearing the arguments has decided the dispute on its merit and came to a finding that the Bank has availed the rule right of set off to adjust the debit and the credit balance of the Complainant’s loan account and the Complainant could not produce any documents to show that any subsidiary loan was sanctioned by the Raiganj Municipality in his favour and for that reason the case was dismissed. Being aggrieved with that order, this appeal follows on the ground that the Ld. Forum has adjudicated the dispute not on merit but without appreciating the evidences and Ld. Forum has failed to exercise the jurisdiction in proper manner and the order of Ld. Forum was full of mistake and errors and liable to be set aside. The appeal was registered in due time and it was admitted on its own merit and notice was sent to the respondent Bank who has contested the appeal through Ld. Advocate. Appeal was heard in presence of both sides through their Ld. Legal Counsels.

Decision with reasons

Ld. Advocate at the time of hearing the appeal contended that the said loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- under a scheme sanctioned by Raiganj Municipality as subsidized loan provided for the help of scheduled caste persons. The appellant as member of scheduled caste community has availed the said loan facilities and out of 20,000/- loan amount 10,000/- was subsidized by the Raiganj Municipality. That amount was kept in the fixed deposit scheme under the instruction of the respondent Bank and it was understood that the interest of the fixed deposit scheme will be adjusted with the loan account and the loan account after adjustment of the interest would be technically closed and the appellant would be availed to get the fixed deposit amount with remaining interest at the time of maturity. But subsequently the Bank violated its own assurances and illegally debited Rs. 3,000/- from his loan account and withheld the maturity value of the fixed deposit with contention that the fixed deposit amount including the interest was adjusted to the default of the repayment of the loan account. In this way, a member of scheduled caste community has been defrauded on the part of a nationalized Bank. So, sufficient compensation should be awarded in favour of the appellant and the order of Ld. Forum should be set aside. The main contention in this case is that whether the said loan was a subsidy loan or not. The Ld. Advocate of the respondent at the time of argument mentioned that the appellant could not produce any single document that the Raiganj Municipality has sanctioned the instant subsidiary loan rather it was a direct loan as the appellant came to the Bank for financial assistance. Bank has extended the reliefs to the member of scheduled caste community for some sort of financial assistance and ultimately the loanee has intentionally violated the terms and conditions of loan and did not pay the installments and as such the Bank has availed the right of set off in this particular case and Ld. Forum has rightly adjudicated the dispute and the appeal case should be dismissed on its merit. The respondent at the time of argument mentioned that being a public sector Bank, the Central Bank of India, Raiganj Branch never provides any loan on the basis of someone being a member of a particular caste or community. Rather, loans are sanctioned on the basis of the need and financial eligibility of the loanee who has capacity to repay the loan amount. The appellant in this case did not produce any document or proof that he was granted subsidy loan through Raiganj Municipality. He, further mentioned that the allegation that the appellant was forced to keep to invest Rs. 10,000/- out of 20,000/- sanctioned loan amount the Bank being a public sector unit can never take resort to such kind of practice.

After, hearing both sides it is established beyond any doubt that the particular loan like any other loan was required to be pay back and the appellant could not produce anything to show that he repaid the loan. It is also established beyond any doubt generally the loan transaction arises from a contract between the loaner and the loanee. Where as per implication of contract of loan the borrower promises to repay the money borrowed by him and right of set off is the right of the Bank to combine the two accounts of the same person where one account which is in credit balance and the other account which is debit amount in order to cover a loan default and right of set off is a banking rule which was well formulated to safeguard the Banks for the loan amounts they have disbursed. Here in this particular case the Bank has availed the rule “right to set off” by closing amount of Rs. 17,642/- as outstanding loan and Rs. 3,231/- was adjusted from his S.B loan account and after realizing the same the loan account was closed. Here in this particular case even in the appellate stage the appellant was asked to produce any such type of documents that it was a subsidized loan sanctioned by the Raiganj Municipality but the appellant could not avail the said opportunity and also failed to produce any such document to prove that it was a subsidized loan. So, without a hesitation we may come to a conclusion that the Ld. Forum has rightly adjudicated the matter and the Ld. Forum has appreciated the evidences very carefully and thereafter came into conclusion that it was not a subsidized loan and Raiganj Municipality had no role to play in the instant loan transaction. It was ordinary loan and the Complainant/Appellant had the duty to pay back the loan amount by installments but the Complainant as loanee could not pay any single funding to adjust the loan amount and for that reason Bank has adjusted the outstanding loan from the loan account and fixed deposit account of the Complainant/Appellant by securing the right of set off and no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice was there on the part of the lender Bank and for that reason the Final Order of Ld. Forum is found correct and appropriate. The Bench did not find any merit in the instant appeal.

Hence, it’s ordered

That the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Uttar Dinajpur.