- Ravi Jain,
Director, Jain Udyog Ltd.
46A, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road,
Kolkata-16. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- Deputy General Manager,
MID Corporate Group,
State Bank of India,
1, Strand Road, Kolkata-1.
- The C.M. & Relationship Manager,
State Bank of India
At Pratap Tower, Bistupur,
Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. ________ Opposite Parties
- Kailash Prasad Jain
9, Rawdon Street, 5th Floor,
Kolkata-17, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani. ________Proforma Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 30 Dated 15-07-2015.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant applied for a loan to o.ps. and after verification of all necessary documents o.ps. sanctioned loan amount to complainant in the year 2004. Due to heavy financial crisis complainant could not run his business smoothly and for that reason he could not pay the interest amount to the bank authority. Ultimately complainant decided to sell his property for payment of the total loan amount and he did the same by RTGS from IndusInd Bank. Complainant requested the o.ps. to refund all the documents which were deposited by complainant at the time of sanctioning the loan. Complainant has alleged that bank authority collected Rs.10 lakhs in excess from complainant violating the banking rules and regulations. Complainant several times requested o.ps. for refund of excess amount of Rs.10 lakhs but till date they did not take any action for refund. Due to unfair trade practice on the part of o.ps. the complainant suffered irreparable loss and also failed to maintain his family members due to such unfair trade practice on the part of o.ps. In the above circumstances, complainant had filed the instant case with prayer for refund of Rs.10 lakhs with 12% interest till the date of payment along with compensation and cost.
O.p. nos.1 and 2 appeared before this Forum and filed their w/v. In their w/v o.ps. denied all the material allegations interalia stated that complainant is Director of Jain Udyog Ltd. which is a company registered under Companies Act. O.ps. gave the loan to the company for commercial purpose. The said company obtained Cash Credit (Book Debt) limit of Rs.2 cr in respect of account no.10413534962 and Cash Credit (Stock) limit of Rs.1.45 cr in respect of account no.10413534543. On 2.8.08 the outstanding amount was Rs.20000550.00 in respect of account no. 10413534962 and Rs.16481270.15 in respect of account no. 10413534543. The aggregate due was Rs.37292201.00 as on 12.9.08. The amount of Rs.3,75,00,000.00 was received through RTGS. On 12.9.08 balance amount of Rs.2,07,799.00 was returned by way of bankers cheque which was paid on 16.9.08. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and as such the case is liable to be dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- u/s 26 of C.P. Act, 1986
Proforma o.p. i.e. o.p. no.3 filed an affidavit stating therein that the contents of the petition of complaint is true and for which he has affirmed the affidavit.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. The moot question for consideration is whether the complaint petition is maintainable or not. It is admitted fact that complainant took a loan from o.p. nos.1 and 2. It is also admitted fact that complainant was a defaulter and a letter dt.10.9.08 has been issued by o.p. nos.1 and 2 and the outstanding amount was Rs.3.65 cr. Accordingly, complainant paid Rs.3.75,00,000.00 and the excess amount which has been alleged by complainant was refunded by way of bankers cheque in favour of Imperial Vehicle Pvt. Ltd. which was duly paid on 16.9.08 (letter dt. 16/06/2011 to complainant issued by o.p. no. 2). Complainant has annexed this document with the complaint petition (running page 17). The whole transaction was made for commercial purpose. So, the case is not maintainable in the ambit of C.P. Act, 1986.
Moreover, the cause of action arose at SBI, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand i.e. o.p. no.2. Both the o.p. nos.1 and 2 reside beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The proforma o.p. i.e. o.p. no.3 resides in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. But we are in the view that in the case of present dispute, if any, o.p. no.3 is no way connected. No averment has been made in regard to o.p. no.3 in the complaint petition. Therefore, we are in the view that complainant has made o.p. no.3 as a party only to create the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
In view of above, the complainant has failed to substantiate his case and is not entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against all the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
