Complainant | Vs. Opposite Parties |
Purnendu Sarkar S/o Late Gour Ch. Sarkar Vill- Green Park, P.O. Mokdumpur Pin Code 732 103 P.S. English Bazar, Dist. Malda | 1) | Manager Indusind Bank Ltd. (Customer Finance Division) Malda Br.1st Floor, Krishna Bhawan, NH-34, Sukanta More, Malda PIN – 732 101. West Bengal |
2) | Manager Indusind Bank Ltd. Kolkata Branch, 41 Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017. West Bengal |
| | |
| | |
Present | 1. | Sri Debi Prasad Mallik, President |
| 2. | Sri Debdas Mukhopadhyay, Member |
| 3. | Smt. Nabanita Kar, Member |
For Complainant: Himself
For O.P. Nos. 1 and 2: Sri Atirath Joarder, Advocate
Order No. 20Dt. 26.03.2015
The facts of this case as it reveals from petitioner’s complaint and the documents filed by him in a nutshell are as follows:
The petitioner Sri Purnendu Sarkar of Vill.–Greenpark, P.O. Mokdumpur, Dist. – Malda purchased one motor cycle taking loan of Rs.41000/- from O.P. Bank with an understanding to repay the loan amount along with interest by 24 equal installments and to that effect he was agreed with the terms and conditions. Subsequently the cheques deposited by him while bounced or in the other word where there was no sufficient money in the bank account of the petitioner the hypothecated motor cycle was seized.
Stating this fact the said petitioner filed this case before Consumer Forum under D.F.C. Case No. 75/2013 (Malda) and the same was dismissed and no appeal preferred against the said order. Subsequently, he files this case intimating that the seizure order of the said motor-cycle of City Civil Court was fictitious and the O.P. did not give proper Balance Sheet of his account and in several times they demanded different amount of money from him. So he files this case in this Forum. He prayed for return of the seized vehicle, 19 number of cheques and an order of the Forum to the Bank Authorities to keep the said vehicle in the custody of Forum and Rs.100000/- as harassment purpose or other charges.
Defence case as reflected in written statement bearing denial of material illegality and also submission of true facts. They stated in their written statement that as per the terms and conditions of the contract the petitioner must pay the amount through post –dated cheques for which the said account must have sufficient money to encash the post dated cheques. It is not duty of the Bank to hammer the petitioner regarding the insufficiency of money of the said bank account but it is the responsibility of the loanee as per agreement and contract to deposit sufficient amount of money in the Bank Account. They further stated that as per general law intimation was given to the petitioiner and the matter was referred to Arbitrator as per Arbitration Reconciliation Act, 1996 and thereafter, a competent order was passed by City Civil Court for appointment of a receiver and the petitioner being aware of all these things he suppressed al these facts which is thus not maintainable and there is no deficiency on the part of the bank.
On the pleadings of the parties following issues are framed
- Whether the case is maintainable?
- Whether there is any cause of action to file this case?
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
::DECISION WITH REASONS::
Issue Nos. 1,2,3 and 4
All the issues are taken up together for the sake of brevity and convenience of discussion.
The filing of the documents by the plaintiff in this case also establishes that the petitioner was directed to give Rs. 40071/- and the City Civil Court repossess the vehicle of the said petitioner. It is also established in this case that as per document submitted by the petitioner the matter was referred to Arbitrator and the petitioner did not pay the amount of Rs.40071/- at the time then and also did not file the case in clean hand thus the Consumer case no.75/2013 was dismissed on contest.
Now this petititioner filed this case at this Forum on the same same ground claiming deficiency on the part of the O.P Bank for the reasons of not intimating him for his letters of date 03.09.2012 and 19.09.2012.
This petitioner is duty bound at the time of taking loan from bank authority as per terms of the loan agreement. The petitioner also filed the Xerox Copy of Misc. Case No. 1627/2013 of City Civil Court, Calcutta. The receiver was appointed by that Court. From the documents filed by the petitioner it is also revealed that as per Clause 2.9 (e) of loan agreement, “no reminder or intimation will be issued by the bank to the borrower regarding his obligation to pay installments on due date and the same is the responsibility of the borrower to ensure prompt and regular payment of loan recovery installments.” When the petitioner fails to obey the rules of contract regarding the payment of installments there is no deficiency on the part of the bank and thus the petitioner is not coming to this Forum with clean hand and therefore, is not entitled to get any relief as per his prayer.
In the result, the claim case fails
Proper fee paid.
Hence, ordered
that the D.F.C Case No. 24/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2.
A copy of this order be supplied to each of the parties free of cost.
