Tripura

StateCommission

A/62/2017

Sri. Satya Narayan Dey - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager, U.B.I - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Debasish Datta, Smt. Sonali Chakraborty

15 Mar 2018

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.62.2017

 

1. Sri Satya Narayan Dey,

S/o Late Upendra Ch. Dey,

Of New Town Road, P.O. R.K. Pur,

P.S. R.K. Pur, Gomati Tripura.

          … … … … … … … Appellant/Complainant.

 

Vs

 

1. The General Manager,

United Bank of India,

Head Office, 16 Hemanta Basu Sarani,

Kolkata 700001.

 

2. The Regional Manager,

United Bank of India,

Regional Office,

P.O. Agartala, West Tripura.

 

3. The Branch Manager,

United Bank of India,

Udaipur Branch,

P.S. R.K. Pur, Gomati District.

                             … … … … … … … Respondent/Opposite Parties.

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

For the Appellant:                                           Mr. Debasish Datta, Adv.

For the Respondents:                                     Mr. Jhulan Ch. Das, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:     15.03.2018.

 

J U D G M E N T [o r a l] 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by Sri  Satya Narayan Dey (hereinafter referred to as complainant) against the judgment dated 16.11.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), South Tripura District, Udaipur in Case No. C.C. 07 of 2015 for modifying the judgment by enhancing the awarded amount of compensation. 

2. Heard Mr. Debasish Datta, Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant Sri Satya Narayan Dey as well as Mr. Jhulan Ch. Das, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/UBI/Bank).
3. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-
4. The complainant filed an application under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the opposite parties-Bank. In the complaint petition, it is stated that the complainant is a reputed businessman and in the 1st part of 2011, he wrote a letter to the Ministry of North Eastern Region and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of India to recommend him for a loan from North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as NEDFI) for setting up a project of package drinking water at Kupilong and in reply, he received a correspondence from the said Ministry on 16.12.2011 that said matter was under consideration of the Ministry. Thereafter, on 09.05.2012, NEDFI issued a letter to him to furnish required documents for obtaining such loan and he accordingly submitted the same after obtaining necessary documents in this regard at the cost of around Rs.2,00.000/- and his project cost was Rs.2,20,50,000/- of which he was entitled to 35% subsidy i.e. Rs.77,17,500/-. Thereafter on 03.05.2013, NEDFI suddenly informed that they were unable to sanction the loan. Receiving the said information, the complainant on 07.09.2013 sent an advocate notice to the Assistant General Manager of NEDFI requesting him to consider the proposal again for sanction of the loan accordingly. In reply to the said advocate notice, the advocate of NEDFI, namely, Mr. Debabrata Talukdhar sent a reply on 29.09.2013 informing the complainant that United Bank of India, Udaipur Branch (one of the opposite party) had informed his client that the complainant had an unliquidated loan at United Bank of India, Udaipur Branch and he was defaulter in repaying the loan amount and the said fact was suppressed by the complainant in affidavit as well as in his application for granting loan, and thus his loan application was considered in negative. But according to the complainant, he had already liquidated the said loan in the year 2002 and his mortgage deed was also released by the Bank with one loan clearance certificate on 09.08.2002. Thereafter, the complainant rushed to the opposite party-Bank to know as to why so wrong information was furnished by them to NEDFI. Then the Branch Manager of the Bank in utter surprise, gave him one certificate on 17.12.2013 mentioning that the loan was settled only on 17.12.2013 on compromise, though in fact loan was liquidated. According to him, due to sudden shock for refusal of loan, he suffered cardiac problem and had to undergo treatment at Bangalore and bi-pass surgery was also done at the cost of Rs.3,00,000/-. Thus, finally he asserted that he was entitled to get compensation of Rs.99,97,500/- under different heads from the Bank but considering the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum, he confined his claim up to Rs.20,00,000/- only.
5. In the written objection, the opposite parties have challenged the maintainability of the proceeding stating that the Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the case as the claim value is Rs.99,00,000 or more. Apart therefrom, the Ministry of North Eastern Region and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of India was necessary party in the case. According to them, the loan was compromised on 08.08.2012 with the complainant with condition that he would submit the copy of the said deed of release of the said mortgage dated 12.08.2002 to the Bank for its verification and deposit the balance amount of loan which was very negligible amount and thereafter the matter would be forwarded to the higher authority for giving the final loan clearance certificate. But the complainant neither submitted the copy of the deed of release to the Bank Authority after collecting the same from Sub-Registry Office nor deposited the rest unpaid amount for which no final loan clearance certificate was issued to him, rather the loan amount was found active in the computer system of the bank. It is further asserted that in December, 2013, the complainant approached the bank to close down the loan account and on asking by Bank, he submitted the copy of deed of release and thereafter the loan amount was actually closed by waiving the payment of outstanding balance of the loan amount.
6. Complainant thereafter examined himself as PW.1 and proved some documents such as photo copy of project report submitted by him to NEDFI (marked as Exhibit.1 subject to objection by other side), copy of letter dated 03.07.2012 issued by NEDFI to the complainant (marked as Exhibit.2), report of package drinking water plant dated 09.05.2012 issued by NEDFI (marked as Exhibit.3), letter dated 03.05.2013 issued by NEDFI (marked as Exhibit.4), certificate dated 09.08.2002 issued by opposite party-Bank (marked as Exhibit.5), original deed of release of mortgage (marked as Exhibit.6), reply notice of Mr. Debabrata Talukdar (marked as Exhibit.6), letter dated 07.04.2014 issued by NEDFI (marked as Exhibit.8) and certificate dated 23.12.2015 (marked as Exhibit.9). From the side of opposite parties-Bank one Sri Jyotirmoy Sarkar was examined and some documents such as photocopy of letter dated 03.05.2013 and 16.07.2012 issued by NEDFI on confrontation to the PW.1 (Exhibit.A and Exhibit.B respectively) and another computerized copy of statement of account in respect of account standing-in the name of Bhagabati Bricks Industry, proprietor of the said bricks industry and appellant herein was also marked as Exhibit.B.
7. The learned District Forum after considering the evidence on records and the submission of the Ld. Counsel of the parties passed the impugned judgment.
8. Mr. Datta, Ld. Counsel while urging for modifying the impugned judgment submits that the learned District Forum committed error while assessing the loss of the complainant as well as deficiency of service and thus the same has to be modified and an order enhancing the awarded amount is required to be passed.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Das, Ld. Counsel while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that though the Bank was entitled to get a negligible amount of Rs.32,981.65, but the same was waived as there was some mistake in the computer system. He further submits that though the loan amount was compromised on 08.08.2002 and a certificate was issued by the concerned authority, but the complainant did not submit it as it was not clear regarding the balance loan amount. He also submits that his project was not cancelled only for the information of the opposite parties Bank Authority, but for another similar project sanctioned within the jurisdiction of Udaipur Sub-Division and its performance was to be observed before financing to the complainant for similar project in the same locality. He again submits that the NEDFI was not made party by the complainant in the complaint petition. Therefore for rejection of his proposal for package drinking water plant by the NEDFI, the opposite parties-Bank cannot be made wholly responsible.
10. We have considered the submission of the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the evidence on record and the impugned judgment. In the impugned judgment the learned District Forum in its findings observed as follows:-

“One of the crucial issued is whether the loan account of the complainant was alive or not at the time of application by him for loan to NEDFI. Thus, let us first discuss with the evidence adduced by the parties in this regard. According to the bank, only a compromise was held in the year 2002 with the complainant but no final settlement took place at that time and some dues was also there against the loan amount which was not liquidated by the complainant. It is also agreed between the parties that the complainant would collect the copy of deed of release and would submit the same to the Bark and thereafter they would refer the matter to the higher authority for final clearance certificate. To justify that there were some dues from the complainant, the opposite parties proved the statement of account (Ext.A) which shows that there are only two entries dated 06.08.2010 regarding withdrawal of 32,981/- (thirty two thousand nine hundred eighty one) and again deposit of the same on 13.12.2013 against the loan account standing in the name of one Bhagawati Brick industry. Except said two entries, the details of statement of account was not placed by the Bank authority and as such said statement cannot be relied upon. Moreover, there is authentication certificate issued under Bankers Books Evidence Act in the said document. Though in his deposition OPW stated that the entire amount of statement available in the manual form in the Bank and not in digital form, but they did not make any attempt to submit the same in the Forum. From the side of complainant, one certificate under Exhibit.5 dated 09.08.2002 issued by the then Branch Manager of United Bank of India, Udaipur was proved and same was also not disputed by the other side. In that certificate, it is mentioned that loan accounts vide CC 78 and SSI 118/90 were compromised with Bhagabati Brick Industry on 8.8.2002. It is not clear whether said loan account numbers refer to a single account or two different loan account. Be that as it may, according to the opposite parties it was only compromised and not finally settled. One deed of release under exhibit. 6 was also proved by the complainant from which it appears that said deed was exhibited between the Branch Manager of United Bank of India, Udaipur Branch with the complainant and the deed of mortgage in respect of a loan was released in favour of the complainant, the loan account being liquidated or settled. If the loan was still un-liquidated by the complainant, then why the Branch Manager executed such deed of release. Thus, the defence taken by the opposite parties that the loan was only compromised and not finally settled is found to be fishy one. Now next crucial question of this case comes up whether for the default of the opposite parties alone, the proposal for loan in favour of complainant was rejected by the NEDFI or not. It is not clear in regard as to what was the proposed loan amount. As per letter under exhibit.2, the Assistant General Manager of NEDFI on 03.07.2012 wrote a letter to the complainant asking him to submit additional information to him by 29.06.2012 on the basis of their previous telephonic conversation which means all the necessary information were not furnished by the complainant to them till that date. Thereafter, it is not clear whether all the required information were supplied to the NEDFI by the complainant in due time or not. Prior thereto, another letter was issued by said Asstt. General Manager on 9.5.2012 (Ext.3) to the complainant asking him to submit some information under 20 numbers of heads with necessary documents and thereafter only said telephonic discussion held with the complainant by him and then he issued the letter under exhibit.2 to furnish further information and said facts indicates that the information furnished in compliance with the letter under exhibit 3 was incomplete. Vide exhibit.4, a letter dated 03.05.2013 , the said Assistant General Manager informed the complainant that his loan proposal was not accepted by NEDFI on the ground that they have already financed in a similar project at Udaipur and it’s performance was yet to be observed before financing to the complainant for similar project in the same locality. From the letter dated 29.09.2013 issued by Debabrata Talukdar, Learned Advocate of NEDFI (exhibit.7) it was mentioned that after consideration of all the relevant documents submitted by complainant to NEDFI, said authority did not find the proposal of complainant support worthy to finance him in that project. It was also stated that similar unit / project was already operation in Udaipur and NEDFI was well aware of defects faced in running said project and next ground as stated in the said reply notice was stated that UBI, Udaipur had informed NEDFI vide letter dated 30.05.2012 that complainant was defaulter in said Bank repaying one loan, and thus finally the proposal of the complainant was rejected. In the said letter, it was also categorically mentioned that there was no commitment from the side of the NEDFI to the complainant on any occasion to grant any loan to the complainant. From the above said reply notice, it is apparent that only for the wrong information submitted by bank authority, the loan proposal was not rejected but it was one of the cause of such rejection. In such a situation whole blame cannot be saddled upon the opposite parties for refusal of loan by NEDFI and consequently Bank authority cannot be solely responsible for the same and thus the compensation as claimed cannot be awarded in favour of complainant. However, relevantly it requires mentioned that the conduct of the bank authority was also not appreciatable in this regard. From the deed of release, it is clear that the loan, if any lying with the Bank from the complainant was liquidated and thereafter the Bank executed said deed of release having no claim from the complainant, thus, thereafter they cannot turn otherwise and give wrong information to NEDFI. If in the computer of the Bank, some dues were shown against the complainant, the Bank should be held deficient in their service in that part. Thus, though the Bank authority cannot be held solely responsible for rejection of loan application of the complainant by NEDFI but certainly there is some deficiency in service from the part of Bank to some extent in this regard. Situated thus, only a lump sum amount of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand) is awarded in favour of the complainant to be paid by the bank authority for their such mistake / deficiency.”

11.   After perusal of the evidence and the impugned judgment we are of the considered view that the learned District Forum did not commit any wrong, rather for misinformation on the basis of the loan amount dues shown in the computer of the Bank, allowed a lump sum amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the Bank and also awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceeding, in total Rs.25,000/- which was to be paid within 30 days from the date of judgment along with interest @ 6% per annum till the date of payment.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, South Tripura District, Udaipur.

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura