West Bengal

StateCommission

A/211/2017

Shri Sudarshan Chakraborty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Anup Bhattacharyya

17 Apr 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
 
First Appeal No. A/211/2017
( Date of Filing : 17 Feb 2017 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 31/01/2017 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/35/2017 of District Kolkata-II(Central))
 
1. Shri Sudarshan Chakraborty
S/o Lt. A.C. Chakraborty, 14/3, Chatterjeepara(E), P.O.- Nona Chandanpukur, Barrackpore, P.S. Titagarh, Kolkata- 700 122.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Br. office, 7th Floor, Apeejay House, 15, Park Street, Kolkata -700 016, P.S. - Park Street.
2. Sri Sanjeev Dey, Chief SPLN Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
7th Floor, Apeejay House, 15, Park Street, Kolkata- 700 016, P.S. Park Street.
3. Gopal Karmakar, Asstt. Manager, ARD Resolution Dept., Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
7th Floor, Apeejay House, 15, Park Street, Kolkata- 700 016, P.S. Park Street.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:Mr. Anup Bhattacharyya, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ashfaque Anwar Sanwarwala., Advocate
Dated : 17 Apr 2019
Final Order / Judgement

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order dated 31-01-2017, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-II (Central) in CC No. 35 of 2017, this Appeal is moved by Sri Sudarshan Chakraborty.

In a nutshell, case of the Appellant was that he took financial assistance worth Rs. 2,00,000/- from the Respondent Bank  for meeting the treatment cost of his wife.  After paying 8th instalment, he approached the Respondent No. 1 for foreclosure of the said loan account.  However, the Respondents refused to oblige him. Not only that, allegedly, the Respondents started levying different amounts in respect of the said loan account on one pretext or the other. Therefore, he filed the complaint case.

The Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint case at the admission stage itself holding inter alia that in view of the debtor-creditor relationship between the parties, the complaint case was not maintainable.

On due consideration of the submission of the parties and after going through the material on record, we, however, found no logic in such contention. 

Undisputedly, the Appellant is an account-holder of the Respondent Bank.  As a banking organization, the Respondent Bank offers different kinds of financial services to its customers in lieu of pre-determined service charge, rendering loan to bank customers being one of the most important financial activities of the Bank. 

The bone of contention of the complaint case revolves around non-furnishing of copy of the loan agreement to the Appellant and arbitrary imposition of different kinds of service charges by the Respondent Bank.

The nature of dispute in its true purport, in our considered opinion, contains all the requisite ingredients of a consumer dispute.  As a customer of the Respondent Bank, the Appellant is definitely a bona fide consumer.

Thus, we find enough merit in this Appeal to remand the case to the Ld. District Forum for disposing the case on merit.

The Appeal, thus, stands allowed.  Consequently, the impugned order stands set aside. Parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 07-05-2019 for fresh adjudication of the case on merit.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.