C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/03
COMPLAINANT : Sekh Jiyauddin Ator Ali
@ Sekh Jiyauddin
S/0. Ator Seikh
of Vill. Rowtara, P.O. Ashachia,
P.S. Kaliganj, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs : 1) ICICI Bank Ltd.
ICICI Bank House,
3A, Gurusaday Road,
Kolkata – 700019
2) Manager,
Head of the Office,
Beldanga, Near Khounish Park
Side Lane of Tarulata Pharmacy,
Local Collection Centre of
ICICI Bank, Krishnagar Branch
P.S. Kotwali, P.O. Krishnagar, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 19th October, 2010
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a tractor (Swaraj) being No. WB/57/8638. On 03.12.05 the OPs sanctioned loan of Rs. 3,48,845/- to him after executing an agreement made between the parties. As per the agreement the petitioner would have to repay the loan amounting @ Rs. 17,700/- per instalment and in a year by 4 instalments. He received the loan amount of Rs. 3,48,845/- on 01.03.06. Thereafter, he paid Rs. 20,000/- on 09.05.06, Rs. 56,000/- on 07.09.06 and on 05.01.07 he paid Rs. 2,00,000/- and on 06.06.07 he again paid the amount of Rs. 49,500/- and on 30.08.07 he paid Rs. 60,000/- and lastly on 01.09.07 he paid Rs. 47,500/-. It was the talk with the OPs that after repayment of the due amount the OPs would issue NOC certificate. Within one year six months since the date of sanctioning loan he repaid Rs. 4,33,000/- in total to the OPs including interest. The complainant thereafter, requested the OPs time and again to issue one NOC in his favour which he required, but the OPs did not issue any such certificate in his favour. Thereafter, he sent a lawyer’s notice demanding issue of NOC on 31.08.09, but to no effect. Hence, this case is filed by him praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
On behalf of the OPs written version is filed, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. They have denied all the allegations made by the complainant. But in para – 17 it is stated by them that this petitioner purchased one tractor being No. WB-57/8638 against which on 03.12.05 a loan amount of Rs. 3,48,845/- was sanctioned in his favour and it was the agreement between the parties that the complainant had to repay the loan @ Rs. 17,700/- per instalment and the entire loan amount would be repaid by 32 instalments and 4 instalments in each year. Though the complainant repaid some loan amount on several times, but did not submit any application for pro-closure of the loan. As per agreement the petitioner paid EMI amount and the amount was deposited in unadjusted account and the OP took EMI amount from the unadjusted account. So the petitioner has no cause of action to file this case and he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Hence, the case is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this suit?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs along with the annexed documents filed by the parties and also after hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, it is available on record that admittedly this complainant took a loan of Rs. 3,48,845/- from the OP No. 1 on 01.03.06. At the time of sanctioning loan it was the agreement between the parties that the complainant would have to repay the amount by 32 instalments @17,700/- per instalment. But from the case record, it is available that within 01.09.07 the complainant repaid the entire loan amount to the OPs on different dates which is denied by the ld. lawyer for the OPs. On the side of the OPs a statement is filed which shows that the loan sanctioned in favour of the complainant was Rs. 3,48,845/- and he paid Rs. 4,33,000/- till date. The total due amount of the bank is Rs. 5,66,400/-. Thus, pre-closure amount as on 31.10.2010 stood at Rs. 1,09,546/- which the complainant had to pay to the OPs for pre-closure of the loan amount. As per terms of the agreement we find that the complainant did not file any application for prepayment / pre-closure of his loan amount. But following the prepayment of the loan rule he made the payment after 180 days commencing from the disbursing date of the loan. In this provision it is also stated that prepayment will be the principal amount along with all the outstanding amounts due and payable as at end of the month in which the prepayment is made. The prepayment shall take effect only when cash has been paid or cheques have been cleared (Page – 5 of the agreement).
On a careful perusal of the provision, we find that the complainant prepaid the loan after 180 days since the date of disbursing the loan, but the OPs did not issue any notice to this complainant asking to submit a formal application for pre-closure of the loan though it is categorically stated in the written version that the petitioner deposited the amount in unadjusted account and opposite party took the EMI amount from the said unadjusted account. This statement means that the EMI amount as deposited by the complainant was duly taken by the OPs and the said amount was utilized by him. So formal application for pre-closure of loan by the complainant is not significant in this case. Rather we hold that the OP ought to close the loan account and issue the NOC in favour of complainant. Besides this, the loan payment was made by the complainant on 01.09.07. The OPs enjoyed the said amount for the last 3 years. As per submission of the ld. lawyer for the OPs we find that 6% was the interest on fixed deposit at that time. So we find that the OPs enjoyed interest upon the above said amount to the extent of more than 1,50,000/- but as per terms of the pre-closure his demand is Rs. 1,09,546/- which is less than the amount of interest already enjoyed by the OPs during the period of 3 years. So we find that the OPs have no further demand from this complainant regarding any due amount payable by the complainant. We do also hold that after enjoying the entire amount the OPs remained silent by not issuing any notice to the complainant or issuing the NOC as asked by the complainant. Undoubtedly, it is a great deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
In view of our above discussions and considering the facts of this case our considered view is that the complainant has become able to prove his case. So he is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/03 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs. The complainant is entitled to have the NOC certificate from the OPs + Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment caused to him along with Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost. The OPs are directed to issue one NOC certificate in the name of the complainant and to pay the decretal amount of Rs. 15,000/- to this complainant within a period of one month since this date of passing the judgment, in default, the decretal amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
