Sri. Apurba Kr. Ghosh............President.

The Complainant has filed this case against the OPs and prays for the following orders/reliefs:-

1. Admission of the Complaint.
2. Direction against the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by the Complainant and his family members.
3. Such other relief/ reliefs to which the Complainant is entitled as per law.  

BRIEF FACT OF THE COMPLAINT

1. That, the Complainant is a Consumer & Agriculturist by occupation and residing at Village Nijbari under PS Phansidewa, Dist Darjeeling.
2. That, the Complainant is an account holder maintaining his saving bank account being no. 11089187575 with the OP No. 2 Bank.
3. That, the Complainant is also an owner of a poultry farm under the name and style M/S Himalaya Poltry Farm within jurisdiction of Jalpaiguri District.
4. That, the OP No. 2 sanctioned an Agricultural Loan in favour of the Complainant upto Rs. 7 Lakhs on 27.10.2005 under Loan Account No. 11089373747.
5. That, at the time of sanction of loan, the Complainant deposited his original documents relating to the land being Deed No. 1590 for the year 2005, along with original search report of the title of the land as well as attested copy of Khatian No. 933/1 and Xerox copy of documents.
6. That, due to non-payment of loan amount on regular basis, the loan turned into NPA on 12.06.2007and on 14.03.2009 it was migrated to the OP No. 1 for recovery of the dues.
7. That, during the period of NPA, the Complainant repaid most of the loan amount but outstanding loan amounting to Rs. 83,170/- was pending on 31.03.2014.
8. That, the OP No. 1 under the scheme for one time settlement of NPAs (SBI OTS 2014/15), an offer letter was issued to the Complainant being letter reference SARB/08/APK/OTS/573 file no. 2901 dated 08.11.2014 and advised him to pay 70% of loan amount of Rs. 58,219/- only as full and final settlement. (Annexure 2).
9. That, as per that offer of one time settlement, of the OP No. 1 the Complainant paid the settlement amount of Rs. 58,219/- on 08.11.2014 (Annexure 3).
10. That, after payment of the settlement amount, the OP No. 2 requested the Complainant to go to their office on any next working day for documents and for No Dues Certificate.
11. That, since after 2014, the Complainant on several occasions went to the OP No. 1 and 2 and requested them for No Dues Certificate as well as documents but they did not pay any attention to the Complainant.
12. That, again the Complainant, by sending a letter dated 16.08.2016, to the OP No. 1 requested them for issuance of No Dues Certificate and documents but the OP No. 1 avoid and negligent to make any reply or return the documents to the Complainant.
13. That, finding no other alternative, the Complainant sent demand notice through his Ld. Advocate on 05.03.2017 requesting for issuance of No Dues Certificate and original documents otherwise the Complainant will take necessary action.
14. That, by letter dated 13.03.2017 the OP No. 1 denied the existence of Original Deed of the Complainant but they admitted certified copy of Deed No. 1590 which was lying with the Bank and they requested the Complainant to collect the same through his Ld. Advocate.
15. That, thereafter the Complainant received a letter dated June, 2017 from the OP No. 1 for one time settlement (Annexure 7).
16. That, the Complainant after getting that letter became astonished because he has already paid his dues by one time settlement in the year 2014 and is suffering from mental agony for non delivery of original documents and the Complainant again wrote a letter dated 24.08.2017 to the OP Bank and the officer of the OP No. 1 told him that they will talk with the Superior Officer and informed the Complainant soon and thereafter on several occasions the Complainant went to the OP No. 1 and 2 but they were avoiding the Complainant. (Annexure 8).
17. That, due to negligence and deficiency in service of the OPs the Complainant is suffering mental agony / harassment.
18. That, the cause of action arose on and from 20.03.2017 when the Complainant received a copy of letter from the OP No. 1 dated 13.03.2017 and denied the existence of Original Deed of the Complainant and thereafter everyday till the filing of the complaint.

   In order to prove the case the Complainant has annexed the following documents:

1.  Bank letter for one time settlement dated 08.11.2014 as Annexure 1.
2. Bank deposit slip dated 08.11.2024 of Rs. 58,219/- (Annexure 2).
3. Letter dated 16.08.2016 by the Complainant Dipak Roy. (Annexure 3).
4. Notice dated 05.03.2017 by Dilip Kumar Roy, Advocate. (Annexure 4)
5. Bank Letter dated 13.03.2017 to Dilip Kumar Roy, Advocate (Annexure 5).
6. Bank Letter for one time settlement dated June 2017 (Annexure 6).
7. Letter dated 24.08.2017 to the bank by the Complainant Dipak Roy.

Notice was issued from this Commission upon the OPs which had duly served upon them and on receipt on notice the OP No. 1 and 2 have appeared through Vokalatnama, filed written version and denied all the material allegation of the Complainant. In the written version the OPs have stated that, the complaint is not maintainable in law or facts / there is no sufficient grounds to file this case against the OPs/ the Complainant has no cause of action against the OPs to file this case / the case is barred by law of limitation/ the complaint fails due to lack of jurisdiction/ the present complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties/ the Complainant has not come with clean hands and thereby he is not entitled to get any relief / the Complainant has suppressed the material fact / the complaint is frivolous one / the Complainant has filed this case to derive unlawful gain by filing this case on some false allegation.

In the written version, the OPs have stated that, the statements made in Para No.  1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9, and 15 of the complaint petition are matter of record and the Complainant is bound to prove the same / the OPs have also stated, that, the statements made in paragraph no. 5 of the complaint is totally false, fabricated and the OPs have never taken any sort of original documents relating to land from the Complainant and as per the terms and conditions of the Government sponsored Agricultural Loan, no original Title Deed is required for the purpose of creation of any charge over any agricultural land and as such the OPs have received some photocopies of documents, certified copies of land deed along with original title search receipts. The OPs have further stated that, the statements made in paragraph no. 10 and 11 are false and denied by the OPs and after payment of one time settlement amount there was no communication from the end of the Complainant rather the employees of the OPs on several occasions requested the Complainant over telephone to observe some necessary formalities to close the issue but the Complainant was reluctant to go to the office of the OPs. The OPs have also stated in the W/V that, the statements made in paragraph no. 12 and 13 are partly true and it was the first time when the Complainant approached for No Dues Certificate and the Complainant issued a Legal Notice dated 05.03.2017 through his Ld. Advocate by misrepresenting the material facts of the case. It is further stated in the W/V that the statements made in paragraph no. 14 of the complaint is true and statements made in paragraph no. 17,18 and 19 are not at all correct and there was no deficiency in service as well as negligence on the part of the OPs towards the Complainant and no cause of action has arose on any day. By filing the W/V the OPs have prayed for dismissal of this case.

Having heard the Ld. Advocates of both the side and on perusal of the complaint, written version as well as documents filed by the parties the following points are taken to be considered/decided by this Commission.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer as per the provision of C.P. Act. ?
2. Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer under the provision of the C.P. Act. ?
3. Whether there is any cause of action to file this case by the Complainant?
4. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged by the Complainant?
5. Is the Complainant has able to prove this case and entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

All the points are taken up together for discussion to avoid unnecessary repetition and for the sake of convenience and brevity of this case.

The Complainant was given opportunity to prove his case by filing evidence as well as by filing supportive documents. In order to prove this case the Complainant has adduced written evidence in the form of an affidavit. He also filed several documents by a firisty. In the written evidence, the Complainant has specifically corroborated the contents of the complaint to the effect that, he was a customer of the OP No. 2 Bank having his saving bank account with that branch. The Complainant has further stated on oath in his written evidence that he took Agricultural Loan from  the     OP No. 2 Bank by depositing his original land document being Deed No. 1590 for the year 2005, search report of the title of the land along with attested copy of  Khatian No. 933/1 and Xerox copy of other documents. In the written evidence the Complainant has further corroborated the Complaint that, due to non-payment of loan amount on regular basis, the loan account turned into NPA and thereafter, during the period of NPA, the Complainant repaid most of the loan amount but Rs. 83,170/- was outstanding on 31.03.2014. The Complainant has further stated that, on 14.03.2009, the loan was migrated to the OP No. 1 for recovery of dues and as per the scheme for one time settlement of NPA, (SBI OTS 2014/15) an offer letter was issued to the Complainant being reference SARB/08/APK/OTS/573, file no. 2901 dated 08.11.2014, the Complainant was asked to pay 70% of the loan amount i.e Rs. 58,219/- as full and final settlement. The Complainant has further stated that, as per scheme of one time settlement of OP No. 1 he paid the settlement amount of Rs. 58,219/- on 08.11.2014, vide Annexure 3. In the written deposition the Complainant has further stated that, since after payment of the dues amount on several occasions the Complainant went to the office of the OPs and requested them for issuing No Dues Certificate and also requested them for handing over Original Deed being no. 1590 for the year 2005. The Complainant has further stated that, when the OPs paid no heed to the Complainant then he wrote a letter dated 16.08.2016 to the OP No. 1 requesting for handing over the original deed as well as No Dues Certificate and also sent legal demand notice dated 05.03.2017 to the OPs through his Ld. Advocate requesting for issuing No Dues Certificate and also requested them for handing over the Original Deed but by sending reply to the Legal Notice, the OPs have denied the existence of the original deed. The Complainant has further stated that, subsequently the OP No. 1 again sent Annexure 7 which is a letter for one time settlement and till today they did not hand over the original deed as well as No Dues Certificate to the Complainant and that’s why the Complainant is suffering a lot due to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

At the time of hearing of argument, Ld. Advocate of the Complainant argued that, they have already filed Written Notes of Argument and stated everything there. He further argued that, the Complainant has been able to prove this case against the OPs not only by adducing evidence before this Commission but also by producing several documents. It is further argument of the Complainant that, despite receiving the full and final settlement amount, by the OP No. 1 they did not hand over the Original Deed of the Complainant and the OPs also did not issued any No Dues Certificate. The further argument of the Complainant that, though the OP No. 1 had received  the full and final settlement amount on 08.11.2014, but again the OP No. 1 issued another letter to the Complainant dated June, 2017 (Annexure 7) which is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as well as negligence.

In order to falsify the case of the Complainant, the OP No. 1 has file an application to treat their written version as their evidence and the prayer was allowed. In the written evidence, the OPs have stated that, there was no negligence as well as deficiency in service on their part toward the Complainant and the Complainant has filed this case on some false allegation by suppressing the actual fact to extort compensation amount knowing fully well that, there is no sufficient cause of action in filing of this case.

At the time of hearing of argument, Ld. Advocate of the OPs argued that, the Complainant is not a consumer and he took loan from the OP No. 1 and the relation between the OPs and the Complainant are of Borrower and lender and as such it is not falling under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further argument of the OPs that, in case of Government Sponsored Agricultural Loan no original title deed is required for the purpose of creation of any charge over any agricultural land and the OPs had received only photocopies of land paper, Xerox/ certified copy of land deed along with original title search receipts. It is further argument of the OPs that, in the prayer portion of the written complaint, the Complainant makes no prayer for return of the original title deed which clearly presumes that, no original deed was given to the OP Bank at the time of disbursement of the loan and the Complainant by suppressing the actual fact has filed this case on some false allegation. Further argument of the OPs is that, the OPs requested the Complainant to go to their office on the next working days for documents and No Dues Certificate but the Complainant did not visit the office of the OPs to collect the same and only to harass the OPs the Complainant has filed this case and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and they waived off 30% of the outstanding amount i.e Rs. 24,951/- at the time of final settlement and that’s why the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for because there was no latches/ deficiency of service to return back the documents as well as No Dues Certificate.

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both the side and on perusal of the entire record including the complaint petition, W/V of the OPs, evidence of the parties, Written notes of argument of both the parties and from the documents annexed with the complaint by the Complainant it is admitted fact by both the parties that, the Complainant was a customer of the OP No. 2 bank having its savings bank account no. 11089187575. It is also admitted fact by both the parties that, the Complainant took agricultural loan from the OP No. 2 Bank of Rs. 7,50,000/- on 27.10.2005 under loan Account No.- 11089373747. It is further admitted fact that, due to non payment of loan amount on regular basis the loan account termed into NPA on 12.06.2007. It is also admitted fact by both the parties that, on 14.03.2009 the entire loan outstanding was migrated to the OP No. 1 for recovery of dues. It is also admitted fact by all the parties that, on 31.03.2014 outstanding loan was of Rs. 83170/- . It is further admitted fact by the OPs that, for one time settlement of the loan the OP No. 1 offer a letter vide scheme for settlement of NPA’s vide letter SARB/08/APK/OTS/573 file no. 2901 dated 08.11.2014 was issued in favour of the Complainant. It is also admitted fact that, as per terms of settlement with the OP No. 1 the Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 58,219/- towards settlement amount which was duly received by the OP No. 1.

Only dispute in this case is that, whether  after making payment of the settlement amount by the Complainant the OPs had issued No Dues Certificate in favour of the Complainant and whether the OPs have returned the original title deed to the Complainant along with other documents or not?

Let us see, how far the Complainant has been able to prove its case against the OPs to the effect that, there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and how far the OPs have been able to falsify the case of the Complainant or not?

From careful scrutiny of the entire record it is not disputed by the OPs that the Complainant did not pay the settlement amount to the OP No. 1 on 08.11.2014. It is also not disputed by the OPs that the Complainant did not sent letter on 16.08.2016 to the OP No. 1 for issuing No Dues Certificate. It is also not disputed on the side of the OPs that they did not receive any legal demand notice of the Complainant. On the other hand it is admitted fact that the OPs have received letter dated 16.08.2016 of the Complainant and also received legal demand notice dated 05.03.2017. But from the record it reveals that, despite receiving the letter dated 16.08.2016 and legal notice dated 05.03.2017 the OPs have not issued any No Dues Certificate in favour of the Complainant which is nothing but the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

Moreover, in the month of June, 2017 OP No. 1 issued another letter in favour of the Complainant asking for one time settlement and to that effect the Complainant has filed Annexure 7 before this Commission. But during, pendency of this case the OPs have failed to explain before this Commission as to why they sent letter in the month of June 2017 in favour of the Complainant asking for one time settlement though it was admitted fact that, the Complainant has already paid the settlement amount on 08.11.2014 to the OP No. 1 and that’s why it is very much presumed by this Commission that, there was clear deficiency in service on the part of the OPs who despite receiving the settlement amount again sent another letter to the Complainant asking for further settlement without handing over the No Dues Certificate to the complainant.  

Considering all, we are of the view that, the Complainant has been able to prove the case against the OPs to the effect that, there was clear deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and for which the Complainant had suffered mental pain and agony.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That the instant Consumer Case being no. 83/2017 is allowed on contest against the OPs and both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount to the Complainant. Therefore, the OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only to the Complainant towards compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by the Complainant and his family members. The OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only to the Complainant for deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. They are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only to the Complainant towards cost of legal proceedings and the OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.

The OPs are directed to pay interest @4% per annum on the awarded amount to the Complainant with effect from date of filing of this case till making payment of the entire amount.

The OPs are also directed to pay the awarded amount within 45 days from this day failing which the Complainant will have the liberty to take proper steps against the OPs as per law.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.