- Sri Partha Sen,
P47, Purba Pally, Haltu,
P.S. Kasba, Kolkata-78. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,
36-38A, Nariman Bhavan,
227, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 and
7th Floor, B Block, Apeejay House,
15, Park Street, P.S. Park Street, Kolkata-16. _______ Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 23 Dated 09/07/2014.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is a reputed business man and is owner of a shop dealing with the gold ornaments under the name and style of “Modern Sen Jewellers” situated at Hatibagan, Kolkata-6. O.p. bank coming to know of the complainant good reputation and goodwill in the market and had time and again approached him to various banking facilities offered by the said io.p. which also included the giving of a personal loan and other credit facilities.
Sometime in the year 2006-07, o.p. again requested the complainant to avail for a personal loan and tried to allure the complainant by giving various lucrative offers. Complainant at that point of time was going through a financial crunch as he had to make huge payments towards the treatment of his ailing father who was then suffering from renal failure and other connected ailments. Moreover, since he was busy with the treatment of his father his business on the other hand was also suffering. It is during this period that o.p. gave the complainant such offer of availing of personal loan on a reasonable and meager rate of interest.
Complainant then being under such tremendous financial crisis much to his unwillingness opted for a loan. O.p. by virtue of the personal loan agreement being no.CSG-1520630 made between the complainant and the o.p. granted a loan to the tune of Rs.1,53,608/- to the complainant which was to be paid back by 36 EMIs and each EMI was to be an amount of Rs.5811/-.
Complainant being bonafide person was making regular payments and there was no default on his part and he had regularly made payment as to the EMIs upto consecutive 24 months or two years, however, with regard to cheque being no.258011 dt.1.4.09 being the 25th cheque was returned unpaid by the banker of the complainant i.e. UTI Bank Ltd., Kolkata with remarks ‘account freezed’. O.p. thereafter initiated proceedings u/s 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 by filing the complaint petition before the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Kolkata vide case no.29525 of 2009.
In the meanwhile the complainant being unaware of the fact of such case being instituted against him approached the bank and being bonafide candidly admitted that because of the huge expenses he has been incurring towards the medical treatment of his father and also for other necessary daily expenses that he has to incur being the only earning member of the family with his parents, wife an two children is finding it a Herculean task to meet up with all such expenditures. As such has not been able to make payment towards a particular EMI for a particular month or in that case for consecutive two or three months.
Pursuant to such proposal by the instant o.p., the complainant paid the total amount of Rs.13,800/- on 16.3.10 against a payment receipt issued by the said o.p. on 16.3.10 along with a letter issued by the authorized representative of o.p. bank which interalia contained that o.p. considering the special circumstances prevailing in the account of the complainant is proposing an one time closer of the loan agreement at he settle sum of Rs.13,800/-. The letter further contained that subsequent to the payment of the said account the o.p. will withdraw all legal cases civil and criminal initiated, if any, against this complainant.
O.p. received the amount of Rs.13,800/- in cash on 16.3.10 itself and the said payment was made by the complainant by sending one of his employees, namely Sri Bimal Basak, to the office of o.p. against which the payment receipt was issued by o.p. On 24.5.10 at around 11.00 – 11.30 p.m. in the night while the complainant has just returned home from his shop at Hatibagan and was preparing himself to have his dinner. The police personnel from the local P.S. i.e. Kasba Police Station reached his house to execute the warrant of arrest that was issued by the Ld. 7th Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dt.24.12.09.
Complainant had to remain behind the bars for the whole night and was produced on the next day before the concerned ld. court where he was granted interim bail for Rs.1000/-. Such bail bond was furnished and thereafter the complainant was released on bail.
O.p. even then did not disclose that they have also initiated similar proceedings against the complainant before the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Mayohall, Bangalore. The complainant came to know of this from the ld. advocate appearing on behalf of o.p. before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate at Kolkata.
O.p. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.p. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
In view of the findings above, we are constrained to hold that the complainant has failed to substantiate to prove his case as there is no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. and complainant is not entitled to relief as the case has been settled between complainant and o.p. and thus the relation between complainant and o.p. has been ceased. Therefore, at this juncture the complainant is no more a consumer.
Hence, ordered,
That the case stands dismissed on contest without cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
