West Bengal

Siliguri

61/S/2013

M/S, ABHISHIKTA F.L. ON SHOP, - Complainant(s)

Versus

DENA BANK, - Opp.Party(s)

24 Mar 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 61/S/2013.                  DATED : 24.03.2015.                 

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

 

                      MEMBER                : SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

 

COMPLAINANT                      : M/S. ABHISHIKTA F.L. ON SHOP,  

                                                              having its place of business at Fatapukur,

                                                              near Telephone Exchange, P.O. & P.S.-

  Rajganj, Dist.- Jalpaiguri, a Proprietorship

  Firm, represented through and by its

  Proprietor Sri Dipankar Sengupta, Son of Late

  Tusta Lal Sengupta, resident of Sukantapally,

                                                              P.O.- Siliguri Bazar, P.S.- Bhaktinagar,

                                                              Dist.- Jalpaiguri.

 

O.Ps.           1.                : DENA BANK,

                                                              Siliguri Branch, having its office at 33/34,

                                                              Sevoke Road, P.O.- Sevoke Road,

  P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling.

 

                                    2.                     : THE BRANCH MANAGER,

                                                              Dena Bank,

                                                              Siliguri Branch, having its office at 33/34,

                                                              Sevoke Road, P.O.- Sevoke Road,

  P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Rathin Sarkar, Advocate.

 

FOR THE OPs                                  : Sri Satyabrata Deb, Advocate.

 

J U D G E M E N T

The complainant is a owner of a Foreign Liquor shop.  He does business for his livelihood.  He took some amount of loan from the OP bank.  The complainant deposited title deeds of some land as a mortgage security.  Condition was when the loan amount would be completely

 

Contd.....P/2

-:2:-

 

 

repaid, those deeds will be returned.  In course of time, the complainant has paid the loan amount, but instead of that, the OP did not make any attempt to return the same deeds.  The complainant issued lawyer’s notice dated 04.12.2012, but the OP failed to give satisfactory answer, and did not pay those title deeds of said mortgaged property.  Hence, the complaint. 

The Dena bank appeared and contested the case by filing written version denying all the material allegations raised by the complainant.  The positive case of the OP is that there was an agreement in between the complainant and the OP.  The complainant is well aware of the norms and guidelines of the RBI so far as the compromise settlement of loan account is concern.  But, the complainant without following the compromise agreement has filed this case.  He did not pay the interest of the loan amount to satisfy the compromise settlement.  OP has also stated that no title deed is mortgaged to them.  Hence, the case deserves to be dismissed. 

To prove this case, the complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief. 

The OP has filed affidavit-in-chief.         

The complainant has filed some document.

1.       Photocopy of letter dated 16.01.2010 issued by the OP No.2 to the complainant.

2.       Photocopy of letter dated 22.01.2011 issued by the OP No.2 to the complainant. 

3.       Photocopy of statement of accounts Sl. No.3.

4.       Photocopy of lawyer’s letter dated 04.12.2012.

5.       Photocopy of postal receipt and A.D.

6.       Photocopy of deposit slips (2 nos.). 

 

 

 

Contd.....P/3

-:3:-

 

 

Point for consideration.

 

1.       Whether there was deficiency of service by the OPs ?

 

Decision with reason.

 

PW No.1 has stated his case in affidavit. 

Bank has stated his case in affidavit. 

It appears from the bank statement of account that interest amounting to Rs.529/- is still unpaid by the complainant to the OP.  But it appears from the affidavit of complainant, that he has paid Rs.529/-, and also from the complaint, it appears that he paid the sum of   Rs.529/-. 

Photocopy of deposit slip shows that he had deposited those amount on 31.08.2012 to Dena bank.  This document which the amount of Rs.529/- has been paid to Dena Bank has not been contradicted by Dena Bank.

So, after deliberation over document filed by the complainant, and documents filed by the OPs, it appears that complainant has deposited the said amount, which was due to bank has been paid fully.  The bank authorities odd to make order of return of title deeds, in favour of the complainant.  

Now, let us consider the prayer of compensation. 

It has been decided of catena of compensation by the Apex Court of law as fixed that the complainant should get just compensation from the Dena bank. 

The title deeds as per statement of complainant, which has been deposited before Dena Bank, have not been returned back to the complainant, in spite of paid of last amount of loan. 

So, it is the Dena Bank for whom the complainant has instituted the case for getting the documents.

 

Contd.....P/4

-:4:-

 

Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get back the titled deeds which were deposited to Dena Bank.

The complainant is entitled to get Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment. 

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.2,000/- for cost of litigation. 

Hence, it is

                    O R D E R E D

that the consumer Case No.61/S/2013 be, and the same is hereby allowed on contest in part with cost. 

The complainant is entitled to get return back the title deeds, which were deposited to the OP. 

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment.

The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.2,000/- for cost of litigation.

The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to return back the titled deeds, which were deposited to them, to the complainant, within 45 days of this order.

The OP Nos.1 & 2 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant, for mental pain, agony and harassment, within 45 days of this order.

The OP Nos.1 & 2 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant, for cost of litigation, within 45 days from the date of this order.

Failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till realization.

In case of default of payment as ordered above, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law. 

Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.

             

                            -Member-                         -President-