Tripura

West Tripura

CC/29/2016

Sri Jhutan Das. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Manager, Vijaya Bank. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.Chaudhuri.

06 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC-   29 of 2016 

Sri Jhutan Das,
S/o- Sri Suresh Chandra Das,
Nutan Nagar, Airport Road, 
Agartala, P.O. & P.S- Airport, 
District- West Tripura.            .....…..…...Complainant.

                         VERSUS

Vijaya Bank, Represented by its Chief Manager,
Agartala Branch, Having his office at Central Road,
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
West Tripura.                ...............Opposite party.

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant        : Sri Surajit Choudhury,
                          Advocate.
                          
    For the O.P.                 : Sri Santanu Bhattcharjee,
                          Sri Sanjay Saha,
                          Rakmat Ulla, 
                          Sri Rajat Deb Choudhury,
                          Sri Rupak Nama,
                          Advocates.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  06.12.2016

J U D G M E N T

            This case arises on the petition filed by one Jhutan Das U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that she opened a CC Account with the Vijaya Bank, Agartala Branch in the year 2013. The maximum limit for taking loan was Rs.25,00,000/-. Vijaya Bank issued notice on him on 18.09.15 informing him that his business transaction was improper. Direction given to refund the amount. It was also informed that limit of the account reduced to Rs.14 lakhs from Rs.25 lakhs. This was done without any notification. His account was classified as Non Performing Account on 30.09.15. On 06.01.16 O.P. Bank issued notice under SARFAESI Act, 2002 upon the complainant. Thereafter step was taken for attachment of the property of the complainant. Being dissatisfied by the service of the O.P. bank petitioner filed this case, prayed for compensation Rs.1 lakh along with interest.

2.            O.P. Vijaya Bank appeared, filed W.S. denying the claim. It is stated that complainant obtained the loan for commercial purpose for running the business. As his business was not running well he decided to reduce the CC limit from Rs.25,00,000/- to Rs.14,00,000/- . As per his request the limit was reduced to Rs.14 lakhs. Complainant was defaulter. He was not paying the installment of the loan regularly. So, as per provision SARFAISE Act 2002 step was taken for attachment of property.
        
3.            On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination.
        (I) Whether the petition is maintainable?
        (II) Whether the action taken by O.P. was improper service and petitioner therefore is entitled to get compensation?

4.            Petitioner produced photocopy of letters, notice U/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, possession notice, paper publication, Bank Statement.
            Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of one witnesses i.e., the complainant of the case. 
        
5.            O.P. on the other hand produced the original notice letters written in different times, details of term deposit, office copy of the bank letter issued informing declaration of NPA. Statement of account, possession notice etc. which are exhibit as marked as Exhibit- A Series. 

6.            On the basis of all these on record we shall now determine the above points.

                Findings and decision:        

7.            From the perusal of the documents furnished before us it is found that loan money was taken in the year 2012 but  dispute arose since 2014. Notice for taking over possession given on 28.03.16 in the daily newspaper. So, cause of action arose in the year 2016. So, the case is not time barred. It is true that loan taken for commercial purpose but it is for self employment. Therefore, the case is maintainable.

8.            We have gone through the letters given by the petitioner,  Jhutan Das in different times. By letter dated 31.08.12, he requested the Branch Manager to decrease the CC limit from 25 lakhs to 15 lakhs. 
    
9.            Learned advocate for the petitioner argued that letter was singed by the petitioner but handwriting in the letter was by different person. Such plea has no leg to stand. Petitioner himself requested the branch manager to reduce the CC limit from 25 lakhs to 15 lakhs.  No evidence produced dispute this letter. So, we find no reasons to disbelieve it. It is clear that on the request of petitioner CC limit was reduced from 25 lakhs to 15 lakhs. But the bank wrote letter to Mrs. Pratima Banik to confirm about the contents of the letter. One Tapas Banik wrote to the Branch Manager to transfer two FD in favour of the CC account of Jhutan Das. Thus he stood the guarantor. Security agreement was singed on 01.03.12. petitioner was a defaulter. Vijaya Bank had given notice for recovery Rs.14, 36,164/- from the petitioner. Notice given for taking step U/S 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest(SARFAESI) Act, 2002. No satisfactory response was given by the petitioner. Outstanding balance was more than 14 lakhs  as on 01.10.15. From the scrutiny it is found that they rightly declared the CC account as NPA. As per agreement signed by both the parties Vijaya Bank had taken step for realization of the outstanding balance Rs.14,58,864/-. There is no deficiency of service found on the part of the Vijaya Bank. Vijaya Bank authority has right to take over possession of the mortgage property. Petitioner is to pay the loan amount within one moth after passing of the judgment. If it is not cleared then Vijaya Bank is at liberty to take step for realization of the amount as per law. The points are decided accordingly.
    
10.            In view of our above findings over the two points the petitioner's case has no merit and stands dismissed. Parties are to bear their own cost.          

                          Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.