- Sri Ashim Ghosh,
Proprietor MAA Enterprise,
634/A, Sri Niketan, P.O. Natagarh,
Sodepur, Kolkata-700113. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- Manager,
India Bulls Financial Services Ltd.
8/1A, 2nd Floor, Little Russel Street,
Middleton Row, Kolkata-71,
P.S. Shakespeare Sarani.
- Manager,
Legal Department,
15, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road,
-
P.S. Maidan.
- India Bulls Financial Services,
F-60, Malhotra Building, 2nd Floor,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi - 110001.
- India Bulls Financial Services Ltd.
India 448-451, Udyog Bihar,
IndiaBulls House, Vihar, Phase V,
Gurgaon – 122001. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 23 Dated 08/12/2015.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant approached to o.ps. for a personal loan for Rs.5 lakhs vide his application no.A1053536 and complainant was granted the said loan under their sanctioned letter dt.29.6.07. Copy of the said letter dt.29.6.07 along with the disbursement cheque has been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint as annex-A collectively. Complainant further stated that EMI has been fixed at Rs.19,617/- payable to o.ps. by complainant. At the time of disbursement of the said cheque, 14 post dated cheques bearing no.084887 – 084900 all drawn on Allahbad Bank, Sodepur Branch duly signed by complainant as security cheque had been handed over to o.ps. The said cheques were issued from a current account bearing no.856.
Coimplaiannt further stated that on 24.9.14 o.p. duly settled the loan demanding Rs.1,40,000/-. Photocopy copy of the said letter has been annexed by complainant as annex-B with the complaint petition. Accordingly o.ps. had received Rs.1,40,000/- on24.4.09 and photocopy of the said receipt has been annexed by complainant as annex-D with the complaint petition.
Thereafter complainant demanded NOC from o.ps. as wells as the signed post dated cheques which were earlier deposited to o.ps. by complainant.
In the aforesaid situation complainant persuaded the matter to o.ps. but ultimately failed to obtained any NOC as wells as to obtain the signed post dated cheques which were earlier deposited to o.ps. as stated above. Under such circumstances, complainant filed the instant case with the prayers contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
O.ps. appeared in this case by filing w/v and contested the case. In w/v o.ps. stated that it appears from annex-D annexed by complainant with the complaint petition that they have received Rs.1,40,000/- but it appears from the said receipt that the said receipt is not meant for foreclosure / settlement amount of collection and as such, o.ps. argued that deposition of Rs.1,40,000/- by complainant to o.ps. cannot be termed as full and final settlement. Beside this, o.ps. stated that the instant case is completely barred by limitation since complainant deposited Rs.1,40,000/- on 24.4.09 which he tried to state full and final settlement but the instant case has been filed on 21.9.12. As such, o.ps. stated that the instant case is barred by limitation since it has filed beyond the stipulated period as laid down in the C.P. Act, 1986. Under such circumstances, o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case since they have not made any deficiency of service to the complainant.
Decision with reasons:
Upon considering the submissions of the parties and on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record, we find from annex-D of the complaint petition as has been annexed by complainant that though he deposited Rs.1,40,000/- on 24.9.09 but it appears from the receipt itself that the said receipt is not meant for foreclosure / settlement amount of collection. As such, it goes without saying that the matter has not yet been settled between the parties in respect of the aforesaid personal loan of complainant. So, it is crystal clear that the personal loan has not yet been closed in any manner or whatsoever. So, at this stage question of issuing NOC by o.ps. to complainant as well as returning the signed cheques deposited to o.ps. as security cheques does not arise. Under such circumstances, this Forum holds that at this present situation it cannot be termed that o.ps. made any deficiency of service being service providers to the consumer / complainant and complainant has failed to substantiate his case and is not entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
