| Final Order / Judgement | OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI C.C.22/2009 Present:- 1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President 2)Sri Upendra Nath Deka - Member Mr. Nozoom Rahman Hazarika -Complainant S/o. Late Nurur Rehman, Resident of Subansiri Apartment, Govt.Press Road, Bamunimaidam, Guwahati-781021 District: Kamrup (Metro),Assam -vs- 1) Mr.Dulal Bhattacharjee, -Opp.parties The Branch Manager, The State Bank of India, New Guwahati Branch, Bamunimaidam,Guwahati-21 2) The State Bank of India, New Guwahati Branch, Bamunimaidam,Guwahati-21. 3) The AGM The State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Dispur,Guwahati-781006 4) The State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Dispur,Guwahati-781006 5) The DGM The State Bank of India, Zonal Office,Bhangagarh, Guwahati-781005 6) The State Bank of India, Zonal Office,Bhangagarh, Guwahati-781005 Appearance- Learned advocates Mr.Dipak Kr.Rajak, Mr.S.P.Upadhaya and Mr.M.K.Sah for the complainant Learned advocates Mr.Subrata Dutta for the opp.parties. Date of argument- 24.6.2016 Date of judgment- 14.7.2016 JUDGMENT This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. - The complaint filed by Mr.Nozoom Rehman Hazarika was admitted on 6.3.09 and notices were served upon all five opp.parties and they also filed their written statement, Thereafter, the complainant filed his evidence on affidavit on 10.6.10 and he was cross-examined by ld counsel of opp.parties. Thereafter one Sri Debasish Roy filed evidence on affidavit on behalf of the opp.parties on 20.9.13 and he was also cross- examined by ld counsel of the complainant. Finally ld advocate Mr.Subrata Dutta filed written argument for the opp.parties and ld advocate Mr.Dipak Kumar Rajak filed written argument for the complainant. On the day of hearing of oral argument i.e. on 18.5.16 ,the complainant was absent without step. However , for the ends of justice, the complainant was given a chance to forward his oral argument and accordingly 24.6.16 was fixed for oral argument of both sides ld advocates’, but on that day also the complainant side was found absent without step, while ld advocate Mr.Subrata Dutta and Mr.Mintu Barman appeared for Opp.Party No.1 to 6. Being compelled we have heard oral argument of ld advocate Mr.Subrata Dutta for the Opp.Party No.1 to 6 and closed the argument and fixed the day on 14.7.16 for delivery of judgment.
- The gist of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is a consumer of Opp.Party No.2, i.e. the State Bank of India, New Guwahati Branch, Bamunimaidam, Guwahati-781021. The complainant was having an Overdraft (OD) account bearing Account NO. 00000010566987407 and he has been carrying on his business by operating the said account from the date of its opening, later on it is converted into a Current Account. The complainant opened the aforesaid account for smooth running of his business and the Opp.Party No.2 had taken the Kisan Vikas Patras (KVP) of its principal value amounting Rs.3,00,000.00 (Three lacs only) as Security Deposit as per their banking norms and allowed the limit of the aforesaid Overdraft (OD) Account was Rs.2,25,000/-(Rupees Two lacs Twenty Five Thousand only ) and the complainant was running the aforesaid account very smoothly and able to meet his day to day business requirement . The complainant purchased a Maruti Car through the UTI Bank Limited at Guwahati Branch situated at G.S.Road, near Post Office, Guwahati (now known AXIS Bank) on hypothecation and he also issued several cheques against the said car loan and AXIS Bank also deposited EMI’s cheque No. 325136 dtd.20.8.07 amounting to Rs.3,981/- to its banker, but it was returned by Opp.Party No.2 with remark “Fund Insufficient” vide return memo dtd 21.8.2007 and Opp.Party No.2 also debited an amount of Rs.75/- as cheque return charge. The AXIS Bank informed him about charge of dishonour and expressed their desire to take legal action against him u/s 138 of Negotiable instrument Act,1881, and also threatended to take over the vehicle and he being compelled paid entire amount of the dishonour cheque to the AXIS Bank by cash. In his account there is sufficient balance and it was Rs.92,284.05 on 21.8.2007 and then he verbally lodged complaint to Opp.Party NO.2 and he also lodged a written complaint to them, but he has not found any positive result, although he visited the said bank thereafter. He also deposited 30 (thirty) Nos of KVP of Rs.10,000/- each ,totaling Rs.3,00,000/- as security deposit at the time of opening aforesaid OD account with Opp.Party No.1 and the said KVP were lying with the maturity value amounting to Rs.6,00,000/-, but even after maturity period he was not informed by Opp.Party No.1 and no interest credited by Opp.Party No.2 in his aforesaid account . He came to know about maturity of said KVP which will lying with Opp.Party No.2. At the time of opening of the Over Draft account and he immediately informed the Opp.Party No.2, but Opp.Party No.1 shifted his liability to the complainant and asked the complainant to persue the matter personally at Golaghat Post Office and then he visited Golaghat Post Office, but Post Master replied to him that he cannot hand over or endorse KVP directly to him as he deposited the KVP as security in the bank of Opp.party NO.2, but finally Post Office endorsed the matured KVP amount Rs.6,00,000/- to Opp.Party No.2 bank, on his effort. He was harassed by Op.Party No.2 compelling him to perform the duties of Op.Party No.2 in getting the maturity value of KVP deposited. Opp.Party No.1 & 2 harassed him by not co-operating with him and by compelling him to travel to Golaghat from his own expenses which is around Rs.20,000/- . AXIS Bank deposited EMI cheque No. 325137 dtd. 20.9.2007 amounting to Rs.3,981/- to Opp.Party No.2 and that was also returned with remark as “Fund Insufficient ” and Opp.Party No.2 debited Rs.75/- as cheque return charge and then he being compelled paid said EMI along with necessary charges in cash to AXIS Bank. But on the date of return of the said cheque by Opp.PartyNo.2 he has balance of Rs.3,93,912.95 in his credit in the bank of Opp.Party No.2. He has also one FDC amounting to Rs.40,000/- with Opp.Party No.2, but said FDC was lost by Opp.Party No.1 at the time of shifting his office and after long persuation Opp.Party No.2 compelled him to surrender his FDC on 3.1.2008 before its maturity period due to loss of certificate of Opp.Party No.1 and transferred the said fixed deposit amount i.e. Rs.41,595 to his OD account on 2.1.2008. AXIS Bank had charged bank charges, interest and penalty against the aforesaid dishonoured cheques due to deficiency of service on the part of Opp.Party NO.1 & 2. The complainant had served notices on Opp.Party No. 1,3 & 5 asking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for his loss of good will and the mental and physical harassment by Opp.Party No.2 by negligently handling the O.D.Account. On 20.6.2008 Opp.Party No.2 apologies to him and admitted their fault and assured him that he has right for justice and called to visit them. Later on, while he visited their office they replied that the matter was pending with them. Finding no other alternative, he also sent another legal notice dtd. 5.1.2009 to Opp.Party No.1 with copies to Opp.Party No.2 & 3 demanding compensation of Rs.50,000/- and the Branch Manager, then asked him to visit him to settle the matter amicably and he then sent his counsel ld advocate Mr. Dipak Kr.Rajak to Opp.Party No.1 on being called through the mobile phone and ld advocate Mr. Mahesh Kr.Sah met Opp.Party No.1 on 28.1.2009 at 11-30 a.m., but they were kept waiting outside his cabin more than two hours. Opp.Party No.1 called his advocate around 2 p.m. on that day and threatened that his branch has been contesting more than 1000 cases in different courts in Guwahati and requested his counsel to take cost of legal notice of Rs.200/- and thereby Opp.Party No.1 has done their dereliction of his duty towards him.
- The gist of the pleading of the opp.parties is that there is no cause of action for filing the complaint. The complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis- joinder of necessary parties. Opp.Party No.3,4,5 & 6 were not any way connected with the complaint and they were made party unnecessarily. The complainant purchased a Maruti Car on hire purchase basis which entirely between him and the AXIS Bank Ltd. as the said transaction the opp.parties have no connection. The Over Draft loan account was standing in the name of the complainant and it was also operated by him and the complainant obtained Over Draft Loan for induction of fresh capital in the business of his company and also to meet immediate business contingencies. The cheque No.325136 had to be returned unpaid as because the complainant issued the said cheque for payment of account loan obtained by him in his personal capacity from different bank and tried to make payment of the said car loan out of his Over Draft loan account which is a gross violation of the purpose of Over Draft loan granted to him by the opp.party bank. Although, KVP’s were deposited as security against the Over Draft loan availed by the complainant, he cannot, now, claim ignorance of by the date of the maturity by the said KVP which was duly purchased by him and it is his duty to inform the bank putting maturity date of the said KVP’s ; However, they sent the KVP’s to Golaghat Post Office for collection and had took time for processing the collection of the maturity amount for two reasons- the Post Office concerned and the Postal Department took up the matter and secondly, if KVP’s are kept as security against any loan, necessary clearance, correspondence and procedures have to be maintained and followed by both the postal department and by bank. The complainant reported them that he would also take up the matter himself and persue the matter with the Post office personally to expedite the collection and ultimately the maturity amount was directly deposited in the Over Draft account of the complainant on 10.9.07 and hence they are not liable to make the travelling expenses made by the complainant in persuing the matter, nor it can be said that they put the complainant in mental and physical harassment. They also repeatedly advised the complainant, not to send any EMI cheques for payment from Over Draft Loan Account as it will amount to violation of purpose of Over Draft Loan Limit granted to him by them, which was for specific purpose only, but despite of such warning, he sent another EMI cheque on 21.9.2007 for payment of EMI of his car loan. They deposited the maturity value of his Fixed Deposit in his current account and he also withdrew an amount of Rs.40,000/- by cash and before credit the Fixed Deposit amount in his current account there was only Rs.36,065/- as balance in the said current account and as such, they did no wrong in dealing with Fixed Deposit Account. They vide their letter dtd.16.6.08 respond that the legal notice issued by the complainant and also call the complainant to come to the branch for sorting out the dispute, but he did not adhere to their request. They also shocked and taken aback after receiving the second legal notice dtd.5.1.2009 from the complainant whereby he demand Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and after receiving of that notice also they asked the complainant to come to the branch for sorting out his grievance, but he did not come forward for the same. The complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
- We have perused the pleading of the parties as well as their evidence. The first thing that transpires to us is that both sides admitted that the complainant Mr.Nozoom Rehman Hazarika had opened an Over-draft account vide No. 00000010566987407 with the State Bank of India, New Guwahati branch (Opp.Party No.2) and was carrying his business under the name and style M/S Kaizen Construction by operating said account from the date of opening of it, he had deposited Kishan Vikash Patra amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- (the principal value) as security deposit and the limit of the overdraft was Rs.2,25,000/- only, and that the complainant had purchased a Maruti Car through Guwahati Branch of UTI Bank Limited (presently Known as Axis Bank Limited)on hire-purchase basis, and issued several cheques against the said car loan at the time of taking of the loan.
Another admitted fact of both sides is that Axis Bank limited sent one EMI cheque bearing No. 325136 dated 20.9.2007 amounting to Rs.3,981/- to Opp.Party No.2 bank ,but the latter returned the cheque vide memo dated 21.8.2007; and thereafter, again Axis Bank Limited sent another EMI cheque bearing No.325137 dt. 20.9.07 amounting to Rs.3,981 /- to Opp.Party No.2 bank and that cheque was also returned by Opp.Party No.2. The opp.party sides plea is that aforesaid cheques were returned unpaid on the ground that EMI of car loan taken by the complainant from Axis Bank Limited cannot be paid out of Over-draft loan of the complainant having it would be gross violation of the purpose of over-draft loan granted to the complainant by Opp.Party NO.2. The complainant admits in his evidence also that he took over-draft loan for running of his business and he issued the EMI cheques of his car loan from the cheque book of over draft account which was opened for running his business. This version of the complainant infers that the complainant indirectly admits the fact that EMI of his car loan which he has taken from Axis Bank Ltd. can not be paid from his Over draft account (A/C No. 000000/0566987407) as the overdraft loan was granted to him by Opp.Party NO.2 bank for running of business in the name and style of M/S COLOUR MUSENGS PVT.LIMITED and M/S KAIZEN CONSTRUCTIONS. Thus, we have found Opp.Party NO.2 lawfully dishonoured the alleged cheques of EMI of the car loan of the complainant. It is also found that the complainant, later on, deposited the amounts of the returned cheques in cash in Axis Bank. So, we hold the opp.parties are not deficiency of service to the complainant by dishonouring the cheques of the EMI of his car loan taken from Axis Bank Limited. - The next allegation of the complainant is that Opp.Party No.2 did not inform him in time about maturity of his thirty K.V.P. (Rs.10,000/-) each which had been deposited to them to secure his Over-draft loan, but he himself informed Opp.Party No.2 about the fact, but Opp.Party NO.2 did not take active step to get the matured value of KVPs collected and then he himself approached the postmaster of post office of Golaghat and requested him to releases the maturity amount, but the latter informed him that he release the amount after getting instruction from Opp.Party No.1 & 2 and finally the post master endorsed payment of Rs.6,00,000/- to Opp.Party NO.2 against the K.V.Ps.
In this respect, the plea of the opp.parties is that the complainant is the purchaser of said KVPs and hence he know about the date of maturity and he is also liable to inform the bank about the maturity date. Their second plea is that the matured amount of KVPs was directly deposited in the Over Draft Account of the complainant on 10.9.2007 by Golaghat Post Office and delay in collection of the maturity value has been caused for two reasons- the postal department had to take up the matter with them having KVPs are kept as security against OD account and the Postal Department had to take clearance from them resulting in several correspondence and procedures had to be maintained and followed by both the postal department and the bank. Their thirdly plea is that, they have not directed the complainant to approach Golaghat Post Office for collection of the maturity value of the KVPs, but he himself approached Golaghat Post Office and requested them to clear the maturity value of the KVPs. In the cross examination complainant admits that the maturity value of the KVPs were deposited in his Over Draft Account by Golaghat Post Office and that he has not submitted any bills or vouchers to substantiate his claim for the expenditure incurred in attending Golaghat Post Office for requesting to clear the maturity value of the KVPs. From evidence and pleadings of the complainant, it is seen that the complainant has no objection for depositing and crediting the matured value of KVPs in his Over Draft Account lies with Opp.Party No.2 . We have also seen from the complaint that he prays that directing the opp.parties to pay RS.20,000/- to him as travelling expenses he met in attending Golaghat Post Office. Thus, it is crystal clear that the maturity value of KVPs were properly credited to the Over Draft Account of the complainant that lies with Opp.Party No.2 by Golaghat Post Office and there is no illegality in such act on the part of Golaghat Post Office and whatever delay was done in collection of the maturity amount is only for doing different correspondence by Golaghat Post Office with Opp.Party No.2 owing to the fact that the KVPs were kept as security for Over Draft loan taken by the complainant from Opp.Party No.2. It is also seen that no inordinate delay was done either by the Golaghat Post Office or by the opp.parties in collecting by the maturity value of the KVPs . It is also found that the complainant has neither adduced any oral or documentary evidence as to his expenditure in attending the Golaghat Post Office for requesting the post master to expedite the release of matured value. Moreover, it is not proved that the opp.parties had asked the complainant to approach Golaghat Post Office for early release of matured value. Therefore, the complainant is entitled neither any compensation for causing delay in collection of the maturity value , nor to any amount for the head of expenditure incurred by him in attending Golaghat Post Office. - The next plea of the complainant is that the opp.party side lost his fixed deposit certificate amounting to Rs.40,000, but finally Opp.Party No. 1 & 2, on 2.1.2008 has deposited Rs.41,595/- in his Over Draft Account, In this respect, the plea of the opp.parties is that they had deposited the maturity value of his fixed deposit certificate in the current account of the complainant and he also drew the amount of Rs.40,000/- from that account. It is seen from evidence that the maturity value of the fixed deposit certificate was properly credited to the account of the complainant by the Opp.Party No.2. Therefore, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation in respect of losing the fixed deposit certificate by the Opp.Party No.2 for certain period.
- Because of what has been discussed as above, we are of opinion that the complaint as filed by the complainant has no merit and he is not entitled to any relief from this forum, nor the opp.parties are liable to pay any amount to him as narrated in his complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed on contest.
Given under our hands and seal of this forum on this day 14th July,2016. Free copies of judgment be delivered to the parties. (Mr.U.N.Deka) (Md.S.Hussain) Member President | |
