Smt. Sangita Paul, Member
This is a case filed by Jagannath Mukherjee S/o. Late Santipada Mukherjee and Indrani Mukherjee, W/o. Shri Jagannath Mukherjee of Chowhati Vivekananda Block, P.O. – Chowhati, P.S. – Sonarpur, dist . – 24 Parganas (South), Kolkata – 700 149 against IDFC First Bank Limited with a prayer for a direction upon the Op to return 6 numbers of cheques which were collected by the OP Bank from the complainant, to direct the OP to hand over the NOC, so that the complainant would not have any liabilities on the said loan in future, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant for their harassment and suffering from mental pain and agony and financial loss.
OP is the authorized signatory of IDFC First Bank Limited. The address of Kolkata Office is 6th Floor, Block-B, Apeejay House, 15, Park Street, Kolkata-700 016, P.S. – Park Street.
The address of the Registered Office is KRM Towers, 7th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai-600 031 and 111/A, Raja S. C. Mullick Road, Kolkata – 700 047.
Complainant by filing this case states that the complainant required a loan. He contacted with the agent of the said bank Arijit Roy. On production of proper identification like Adhaar, Pan Card, Voter I Card, Marriage Registration Certificate, Bank A/C Statement, the complainant will be entitled to get loan from the bank.
The Complainant was told to send the documents to Surajit Guha Roy’s whatsapp No.9804381241. After receiving the copy, Mr. Surajit
Guha Roy assured the complainant that he would get the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from bank. On 31.07.2020, one Priya Das Sanyal visited the residence of the complainant on behalf of IDFC First Bank Ltd. After the completion of inspection, she offered a sanction-letter through whatsapp for a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and offered 6 blank cheques bearing numbers 000033, 000035, 000036, 000037, 000038, 000039 of Bandhan Bank for the said bank loan. A signature verification form which was obtained from the Bandhan Bank was also deposited by the complainant. The complainant was also told to visit
Garia Branch for signature on the copy of agreement on 03.08.2020.
On the same day, the complainant received an SMS at 22
:08 Hrs that the loan amount of Rs.4,70,073/- has been disbursed and the complainant had to pay EMI for 48 months. The statement did not match with the statement of Priya Das Sanyal. At that time, the complainant told her to cancel the loan. She was not willing to do so. On the same day, another sanction letter was dispatched to the complainant therein the EMI was sanctioned for 36 months with 9.5% interest. On 03.08.2020 at 09:30 a.m., the complainant received an SMS that an amount of Rs.4,67,046 has been credited to the bank account of the complainant. The complainant rushed to the said OP bank and the Branch Manager Tushar Ghoshal said the sanction letters are false. Actually the complainant had to pay EMI of Rs.15,547/- for 48 months. The complainant asked him to cancel the said loan, since fraudulent activities happened. But he refused to listen to the complainant. The complainant asked them to return 6 cheques that the complainant also stated that on 06.08.2020 Tushar Ghoshal called the complainant by SMS to visit Garia Branch to cancel the loan after payment of the penalty. The OP sent a letter through bank staff Dipankar Dey to return Rs.4,67,046/- but did not talk about 6 cheques and NOC. Complainant was informed that he had to pay the loan. The complainant returned the amount of Rs.04,67,046/- and lodged the instant case.
The cause of action arose on 31.07.2020, i.e. the date on which the loan was offered to the complainant and it is still continuing.
Hence, the complainant prays for returning 6 cheques to him, the cheque nos being 000033, 000035, 000036, 000037, 000038 and 000039, and directing the OP to handover the NOC, for paying aRs.2,00,000/- to the complainants for harassment and suffering from mental pain, agony and financial loss.
The OP in his written version states that the above case is not maintainable in law or on fact. The case is harassing, motivated, speculative and without any cause of action. That the above case is suppression of material fact. That the above case is barred by the principles of waiver and estoppels.
OP states that after receiving the complaint, the OPs have been in continuous touch with the complainant for prompt and absolute resolution regarding the matter in dispute. After disbursing the loan, the said loan account has been closed by the OPs. The OPs state that in case of cancelled loan account, the OPs do not provide NOC as per norms of Banking Organization. The OPs informed the complainant that the account has been closed. The OPs told the complainant to collect the security cheques from the Branch Office situated at the Apeejay House.
OPs further state that they would not indulge in any action, which are detrimental to the interest of the customer. So the allegations made against the OPs are incorrect and misleading.
The OP denies that there was any deficiency on their part or that the complainant had any reason to suffer in any manner.
OPs state that the complainant failed to make out any case of consumer disputes within the meaning of C.P. Act.
That the complainant has filed the petition wrongfully. So the complainant is not entitled to any relief.
The OPs pray for dismissal of the case.
The instant case was filed on 19.04.2021. The case was admitted on 06.05.2021. On 29.11.2021, the OPs file W/V. On 28.12.2021, the complainants file evidence on affidavit. On 17.03.2022, the OPs file questionnaire. On 22.04.2022 reply is filed by the complainant. On 23.06.2022 OP files evidence on affidavit. 11.08.2022 was fixed for argument. Argument was heard and accordingly we proceeded for giving judgement.
Points of Consideration
01.Is the complainant, a consumer?
02.Is there any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs?
03.Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons :-
- On perusal of records and documents, it appears that the complainant was in an urgent need of loan for expansion of his work. The complainant was asked to submit some important documents like Adhaar, PAN Card etc. After perusal of documents, the OP, IDFC First Bank Ltd. agreed to sanction a loan of Rs.5,00,000/-. Complainant was told to sign on 6 blank cheques and submit it to the OP Bank for the said bank loan. In the loan agreement, the complainant was also instructed to buy a Life Insurance Policy and deposit the receipt of the premium to the Bank. In the sanction letter the complainant was instructed to repay the loan within 48 months. Hence, it appears that the complainant is a Consumer u/s 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
- Complainant intended to avail a loan from the OP IDFC First Bank Ltd. Complainant contacted with the Bank through an agent. The complainant produced important documents. After perusal of the documents, a loan amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- was sanctioned. As instructed by the bank, the complainant produced 6 blank cheques with the signature of the complainant. One Priya Das Sanyal of the said bank visited the complainant’s house and sanctioned Rs.5,00,000/- they charged processing fees of Rs.5,310/- and the duration was 36 months. The complainant had to pay Rs.16,846.99/- only per month as instalment. On the same day, the bank sanctioned Rs.4,70,073/- and the amount has been disbursed to the account of the complainant. The complainant wanted to cancel the loan against on 03.08.2020, the complainant was informed through the Bandhan Bank Rs.4,67,046/- has been credited to the bank account of the complainant. The complainant failed to realize they Rs.17210 have been deducted. Now the LIC has been made in their favour? As the OPs did not feel it important to answer all these question, then it is proved that the OPs are deficient in rendering service. They took chance of the complaint’s problem. The amount of loan has been sanctioned but the amount is different in 3 different times. Even in the loan agreement, it was mentioned that Rs.5,00,000/- had been sanctioned. All these activities are the glaring examples of unfair trade practice. Hence the 2nd point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the OPs.
- The complainant deposited 6 post dated cheques being no.000033, 000035, 000036, 000037, 000038 and 000039 for taking loan. The complainant put his signatures on those blank cheques. Complainant cancelled the loan, still the cheques were not returned to him. The complainant afraid of thinking that any amount might be deducted from his account. Though he did not take the loan, he might fall in problem if the cheques are not returned to him, the NOC on the part of the bank has not been delivered to him. His name might be included in the Cibil, which shows the credit history of the person who takes loan. The OP did not submit the NOC. The complainant already deposited the amount of Rs.4,67,076/- to the OP. These activities increased the mental agony of the complainant. As the complainant himself cancelled the loan and returned the loan amount to the OP bank he is entitled to get relief as prayed for. The complainant suffers for no fault of his own.
Hence, the third point is decided in favour of complainant and against the OPs.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
that the complaint case be and the same is allowed with contest against the OPs with cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand).
The OP Bank is directed to handover the signed blank cheques being nos. 000033, 000035, 000036, 000037, 000038 and 000039 of Bandhan Bank to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order.
That the OP Bank is directed to hand over the NOC to the complainant so that the complainant would not have to face further inconvenience in future, within the stipulated period of 60 days from the date of this order.
That the OP is also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order for deficiency in service, mental pain and agony.
That the litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) is to be paid within the stipulated period of 60 days.
That the complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution if the orders are not complied with within the stipulated period of 60 days.
Let a copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned free of cost.
That the final order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Sangita Paul)
Member
