IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.CC/129/2017  

Date of Filing: 08.08.17                                                            Date of Final Order: 31.01.19

Complainant:  Kusumuddin Sk

S/o Soleman Sk

Vill-Dadmati, PO-Debaipur

PS-Ranitala

Dist-Murshidabad

Pin-742133

-Vs-

Opposite Party: Manager

Bank of India

Debaipur Branch

PO-Debaipur

PS-Raninagar

Dist-Murshidabad

Pin-742133

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Fairdous Wahid Siddique.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party         : Sri Siddhartha Sankar Dhar.

                       Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                              

                                         Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.

This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

One Kusumuddin Sk. (herein after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Manager, Bank of India (herein after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows

The Complainant granted financial assistance by the Government and he also applied for a loan of Rs.15,000/- which was granted by the OP being loan account No.4216322100000254 but it had been noticed that he had taken loan of Rs.16,507/-. The matter was intimated to the OP but of no result. On 15.06.11 the loan balance shown as Rs.0.00/- but the loan liability of the Complainant is shown as Rs.21,247/- The OP demanded Rs.20,247/- and the Complainant deposited Rs.15,500/- on different dates.The Complainant did not withdraw any amount on 19.11.13 but it had been shown in the statement that he had withdrawn Rs.10,000/- on 19.11.13. The Complainant visited the Bank but the issue was not resolved and the Complainant was not permitted to withdraw any amount from his loan account and the OP also refused to supply updated statement of account in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant prayed for a direction upon the OP so that the OP cannot claim Rs.16,507/- as unpaid loan. He also prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- against the OP for his mental pain and agony.

The OP contested the case by filing written version on 17.01.18, inter alia, denying the materials allegations made out in the complaint, contending, that the case is not maintainable and the Complainant has no cause of action to file the case. It is the specific case of the OP that the OP sanctioned Agricultural Loan on 21.02.08 on prayer of the Complainant being his loan account No. 4216322100000254 but the Complainant was a habitual defaulter for which the loan amount became NPA and the due amount was Rs.21,247/-.

The Complainant thereafter paid Rs.1,000/- on 10.12.12, Rs.500/- on 24.06.13, Rs.10,000/- on 30.09.13 and Rs.4,000/- on 18.11.13 and the remaining due amount was Rs.5,747/- and the unpaid interest of the NPA amount is also remained due. On 18.11.13 a loan of Rs.10,000/- was granted in favour of the Complainant and the said sum was transferred to his savings account No.421610100004701 from his loan account on 19.11.13 and out of the said amount the petitioner withdrew a sum of Rs.4,000/- on 19.11.13 and Rs.5,747/- on 19.11.13. The petitioner has not repaid the amount till date and the loan account again became NPA. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :

Points for consideration

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Point No.1

Neither of the Parties had taken part in hearing of the argument but the Complainant has filed written argument.

On perusal of the materials on record we find that the Complainant hired the services of the OP as he had savings account and loan account in the OP Bank. Hence we hold that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 I d (ii) of the CP Act, 1986.

Point No.2

The Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.

                  On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of.

Point Nos.3&4

                        It is the case of the Complainant that he took a loan and the demand of the OP against the loan account is excessive and baseless. It is also the allegations of the Complainant that he did not withdraw any amount on 19.11.13 but an amount of Rs.10,000/- had been withdrawn from his account on 19.11.13. The Complainant has asserted that the OP has deficiency in service. The Complainant has not filed any document except a transaction enquiry and a complaint addressed to the OC, Ranitala PS. The OP has stated in its written version that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was transferred from the loan account to the savings account of the Complainant being No.421610100004701 on 19.11.13 and the OP has stated the manner of deposits  and withdrawals of the Complainant from his accounts. The Complainant has not even denied that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was transferred from his loan account to his savings account No.421610100004701 on 19.11.13. It appears from the copy of transaction enquiry submitted by the Complainant that the balance amount was Rs.20,306/- as on 30.11.16. Therefore, it is clear from the transaction enquiry that the Complainant was not regular in repayment of loan amount. We find nothing to hold that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case. Both the points are thus disposed of.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 08.08.17 and admitted on 01.09.17 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day order.

In the result, the Consumer case fails.

  Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

                                 Ordered

that the complaint Case No.CC/129/2017 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP without cost.

Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

             President.                        

        Member                                                                                               President.