West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/53/2016

Bilas Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, United Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

18 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and

 Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member   

Complaint Case No. 53/2016                                                       

Sri Bilas Pal, S/o Late Nimai Pal, Vill. – Durlavganj, P.O. Satbankura,

P.S. Garhbeta, District- Paschim Medinipur.…..….……Complainant.

Vs.

Manager United Bank of India, Satbankura Branch, Vill. & P.O. Satbankura,

District-Paschim Medinipur ...………...........…..Opp. Party.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Subhajit Sinha, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Santanu Das, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -18/08/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is a professional driver and he purchased a Multi Axle goods vehicle being Registration no.WB-33B-1960 after taking financial loan from the opposite party –bank. After purchasing the said vehicle, the complainant has been plying his said vehicle for his gain and started to repay the loan amount to the opposite party.  At the time of sanctioning the loan amount, the opposite party deducted a sum of Rs.37,793/- on 13/04/2011 from his loan account being no.029300064169 for the purpose of insuring the said vehicle and also handed over the policy certificate to the complainant.  On 04/04/2012, opposite party again deducted Rs.45,172/- from the loan account of the complainant for the purpose of insurance of that vehicle but the opposite party did not deliver the policy certificate for which the complainant was unable to run his vehicle and he was therefore compelled to purchase a new insurance policy for the same period from his  own fund from Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.  Thereafter, the complainant on several times met the opposite party and asked them to provide the original insurance policy certificate or to adjust Rs.45,172/- in his loan

Contd……………..P/2

 

 

( 2 )

account.  Opposite party initially assured to adjust the said amount but they did not deposit the  amount and due to such deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant stopped making payment of loan amount as per advice of the opposite party.  The complainant’s vehicle in question is a National Permit vehicle and his last National Permit authorization was valid up to 30/04/2015.  On 30/03/2015, complainant again went to the opposite party for getting  their no objection certificate in favour of Regional Transport Authority for sanctioning National Permit  but the opposite party did not provide the same for which the complainant could not renew his National Permit authorization since 30/04/2015 and he has been compelled to stop running his vehicle and he is incurring a daily loss of  Rs.1,000/-.  On 01/04/2015, the opposite party threatened the complainant that they will seize the vehicle for which the complainant was compelled to stop running his vehicle since 01/04/2015.  It is alleged that due to non co-operation of the opposite party, the complainant sent a Lawyer’s notice to the O.P. on 11/03/2016 through his Advocate Subhajit Singha and the same was duly received by the opposite party on 14/03/2016 but they did not give any reply.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the opposite party to provide insurance policy certificate so purchased on 4/4/2012 or to deposit  the deducted  amount of Rs.45,172/- in his loan account and for directing the opposite party  to provide no objection certificate for getting National Authorization certificate and for an award of Rs.3,88,000/- as compensation and litigation cost.

                  The opposite party has contested this case by filling a written objection. Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party that the present petition is not maintainable in it’s present form and prayer, that the petition of complaint is barred by limitation, that the complainant is not a consumer as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act, that the complainant has got business transaction with the opposite party-bank,  that the complainant purchased the goods vehicle by taking loan for his business purpose, that  the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, that United Bank of India, Satbankura Branch is a necessary party, that the present opposite party is a mere employee of the bank and he cannot do any act in his personal capacity. It is the specific case of the opposite party that the complainant obtained a term loan of Rs.14,00,000/- from the opposite party on 12/04/2011 and the said loan was disbursed initially for Rs.11,92,000/- in the loan account being no.029730064169/- of  the complainant and subsequently all the loan  amount was utilized by the borrower for purchase of truck and other charges of the said vehicle and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant as per delivery order of the opposite party-bank.  The complainant utilized the said loan and used to run his said

Contd……………..P/3

 

( 3 )

vehicle for his professional gain.  Complainant is a business man and he plies the truck for his said business purpose.  At the time of taking loan, a sum of Rs.37,793/- was deducted from his loan account for payment of insurance premium and the copy of Insurance Policy was handed over to the complainant.  Again on 04/04/2012, a sum of Rs.45,172/- was deducted from his loan account for payment towards insurance premium and the policy was also handed over to the complainant.  It is stated that the original insurance policy has been kept in the custody of the bank.  Truck was hypothecated to the bank and the copy of the same was handed over to the complainant for running his truck business.  It is unknown to the opposite party that the complainant again purchased a new policy for the said vehicle and for the said period out of his own pocket.  The said act of the complainant is completely illegal, arbitrary and without basis.  As per version of the complainant when the said adjustment was not done by the bank for the period of 2012-2013, complainant did not take any action against the bank and after lapse of  two years, the present complaint has been filed and as such it is barred by limitation.  As the complainant did not pay installments of the loan, so the bank authority did not issue no objection certificate for getting renewal of the national permit.  Presently huge sum of Rs.10,947.26/- is outstanding against his loan and for such reason, bank could not provide no objection/no dues certificate to the complainant as the vehicle is still hypothecated to the bank and therefore no latches or negligence has been done by the opposite party.  It is further stated that there is also no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  The opposite party therefore claims dismissal of the complaint with cost.

                                                                 Point for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?
2. Is the  complainant a  consumer under the provision of C.P. Act ?
3. Is the complaint barred by limitation ?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?

Decision with reasons

        For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

        At the very outset, it is to be stated here that neither the complainant nor the opposite party adduced any evidence either oral or documentary but they have relied upon some documents, so filed by them. 

       Regarding point no.2 i.e. whether the complainant is a ‘consumer’ under the provision of C.P. Act,  we find that in his written objection, the opposite party has

Contd……………..P/4

 

( 4 )

 stated that the complainant is not a consumer as he has got business transaction with the bank which does not come under the purview of C.P. Act.  It is also stated by the opposite party in his written objection with the complainant purchased the vehicle by taking loan for business transaction.  On this score, we find that in his petition of complaint the complainant has stated that he is a professional driver and he purchased the said goods vehicle after taking loan from the opposite party and after such purchasing, the complainant has been plying the said vehicle for his gain.  It thus appears that admittedly the loan transaction of the complainant with the opposite party –bank for purchasing the said goods vehicle is a commercial transaction.  Nowhere in his petition of complaint, the complainant has stated that the vehicle in question is being used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.  On the contrary, he has admitted that he has been plying the said goods vehicle in question for gain.  So in view of Section 2(d) of C.P. Act, 1986, the present complainant is not a ‘consumer’ and as such the present petition of complaint under Section 12 of the C.P. Act is not maintainable.

              Regarding the point of limitation, we find that the alleged deduction of Rs.45,172/-  from such loan account of the complainant was done on 4/4/2012 and the complainant has prayed for the reliefs for adjusting the said deducted amount of Rs.45,172/-   in his loan account.  So the cause of action arose on 04/04/2012 but the present petition  of complaint has been filed on 22/4/2016 i.e. beyond the period of limitation of 2 years from the date of cause of action on 04/04/12.  The petition of complaint is therefore barred by limitation. 

          In view of our above findings regarding point nos.2 & 3, the present complaint is not maintainable and as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

          All the above points are accordingly disposed of. 

          In the result present petition of complaint deserves to be dismissed.   

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                                    Ordered,

                                    that the complaint case no.53/2016  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                                 Let plain copy of this order be given to the party free of cost.

             Dictated and Corrected by me

                      Sd/-B. Pramanik.                Sd/- D. Sengupta.                     Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                              President                                Member                                  President

                                                                                                                        District Forum

                                                                                                                     Paschim Medinipur