Mr. Nityasundar Trivedi, Member

          In the Shakespearian drama there are instances that namesake can be a matter of comedy, but for this instant case similarity in name has caused much tragedy to one of the stake holders (namely Mr. Debojit Mukherjee son of Tapas Mukherjee) for being confused with another Debojit Mukherjee Son of Gautam Mukherjee, incidentally both of whom had their Education Loan Accounts in the same Bank (SBI, RACPC Branch, Kolkata).

          The gist of the case is:

       The former Debojit Mukherjee (who is son of Tapas Mukherjee) applied for an Education loan of Rs.2,47,000/- from the SBI, RACPC Branch keeping 12 (Twelve) FDRs totaling Rs. 2,77,151/- as collateral security for the purpose of facilitating expenses of education of Hotel Management Course in the year 2008.  After the first semester of the said course the student discontinued this course and intimated the Bank of such matter.  By then the student had availed the first installment of Rs.47,000/-(Forty Seven thousand) out of Rs.2,47,000/- from the said Bank and  as he was not allowed subsequent installments, he became forgetful of the matter.

         Years elapsed after that and the first Debojit Mukherjee son of Tapas Mukherjee, one fine morning received a letter on 18.08.2014 to the effect that a sum of Rs.1,61,000/- was his dues with the Bank for taking Education Loan as on 31.03.2014 for which the Bank advised him to go for one time settlement as per OTS Scheme.  The student (Debijit Mukherjee), Respondent of this case on 25.08.2014 wrote to the Bank to know the status of the loan account and details of the component of Principal/interest amount of the loan Account with no reply.  Subsequently, the father of the student (father of the Respondent of this case) also made correspondences with the concerned Bank and urged the Bank Authority to check whether the sum of Rs.1,61,000/- which was charged on the Loan Account of his son was actually wrongly disbursed to another Debojit Mukherjee son of Gautam Mukherjee, who had similar education loan account in the Branch and who was continuing his studies in Chennai.

           It was alleged that on receipt of this communication the Bank Authority did not rectify the anomaly pointed out to them but instead took sterner steps.  The Bank liquidated the 12 (twelve) fixed deposits totaling Rs.2,77,151/- and adjusted the entire amount against the Loan Account of the second Debojit Mukherjee (Son of Gautam Mukherjee).

         Thus, the first Debojit Mukherjee lost FDR-s to the extent of Rs.2,77,151/- for receiving Rs.47,000/- as Education Loan in 2008 (and whose interest as on 2014 could never the more than 47,000/-).

           Hence, this complaint case arose in the DCDRC, Kolkata, Unit-II u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 praying for direction upon the O.P, Bank to settle his Loan Account of Rs.47,000/-, release the residual amount of matured value of the FDRs totaling Rs. 2,77,151/- plus interest accrued thereon with usual rate of interest and to pay litigation cost of Rs.2000/-.

           After contested hearing the DCDRC pronounced its Judgment to the effect that the O.P Bank are liable to pay the matured value of the FDRs with interest rate of interest @7% p.a. from 31.03.2014 after realization of the Loan Account of Rs.47,000/- (plus interest) and also to pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.  The Hon’ble DCDRC also ordered settlement of the Loan Account of Rs.47,000/- within 30 days from the date of Order (27.04.2018) i.d. to pay fine @Rs.100/- per day’s delay. 

          Being aggrieved with this Judgment and Order the O.P SBI at District Forum moved this Hon’ble State Commission as Appellant preferring Appeal initiating A/632/2018. 

           After threadbare analysis of the matter and listening to arguments/counter argument of both the parties to this Appeal, we find no lacuna or irregularity or illegality in the Judgment of the District Forum for which we are constrained to hold and firmly hold that this case is an classical example of exercise of colorable power of the SBI Bank Branch, which is rarely found after nationalization of Banks,  to penalize and extort the loanee, by using its power to liquidate FDR, even when the existence of second Debojit Mukherjee was highlighted before them on behalf of the hapless Complainant (Debojit Mukherjee the first, son of Tapas Mukherjee).

          The District Commission repeatedly called for the related particulars which were lying with the Bank Branch and access to which could have been made by the Bank within seconds, pressing keys of the computer which was not at all done, for reasons best known to the Bank for which the section 114(g) of the (I.E.A) Indian Evidence Act was applied by the District Forum, and applied rightly, to nip such tendencies in the bud by withholding public documents lying in the hand of Banks and to prevent such whimsical, erratic, customer hurting and tyrannical activities of the Bank Authority, knowing fully well that these were wrong steps on their part.

            Hence,

            The Appeal No.A/632/2018 fails.

O R D E R E D

         That the present Appeal being number A/632/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest but considering the circumstances without any order as to costs.

              The Order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the DCDRF, Kolkata-II in CC/328/2017 is affirmed.

              Let free copy of this Judgment be handed over to both the parties for information and taking necessary action.

             Inform all concerned accordingly.

             Thus, the Appeal stands disposed of.

             Note accordingly.