In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 221 / 2010.
1) Sri Pralay Singha Roy @ Sinha Roy,
23, Dawas Tenple Road, 1st Floor, Flat 105, Bally, Howrah-711208. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank,
7th Floor, B-Block, Apeejay House, 15, Park Street, Kolkata-700016.
2) Authorised Signatory, M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank,
Apeejay House, 15, Park Street, Kolkata-700016.
3) ONG Vysya Bank Ltd.,
24 & 26, Hamanta Basu Sarani,
Old Court House Street, Kolkata-700001. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Smt. Jhumki Saha, Member.
Dr. A. B. Chakraborty, Member
Order No. 1 9 Dated 1 4 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 2 .
The petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant Sri Pralay Singha Roy against the o.ps. Kotak Mahindra Bank and others. The case of the complainant in short is that he took a loan of Rs.5 lakhs from o.p. nos.1 and 2 on 4.1.08 vide agreement no.239720. Complainant as full and final settlement paid a sum of Rs.19,760/- to o.p. no.1 and such settlement and payment was made to the authorized signatory Mr. Amitabha Mishra who confirmed the said settlement vide letter no.24.9.09. But after the settlement and payment o.p. no.1 withdrew Rs.39,760/- in two spells through ECS from his account with ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Kolkata on 1.12.09 and 1.2.10 respectively. A series of letter were made by complainant for refund of the said Rs.39,760/-. Hence the instant case.
O.ps. did not appear in this case by filing w/v and as such, matter was heard ex parte.
Decision with reasons:-
We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant, evidence and documents on record. From the record we come to find that vide annex-B attached with the petition of complaint that complainant made payment of Rs.90,000/- towards one time settlement with o.p. nos.1 and 2 and this findings appears to be an admitted fact vide letter dt.24.9.09 issued by o.p. nos.1 and 2 wherefrom it reveals “Received the final payment Rs.90,000/- in pay order vide no.225792 and we shall withdraw the all legal case filed against you u/s 138 of N.I. Act and provide you the withdrawal document at the earliest and there will be no claim in the above mention loan account. We will also provide you all your PDCs and NOC After clearance of final payment”. It is crystal clear from the letter dt.24.9.09 that o.p. nos.1 and 2 received from complainant Rs.90,000/- towards one time settlement and this position has not been denied by o.p. nos.1 an 2 nowhere on record. It is surprising to note from the record that o.p. nos.1 and 2 remitted Rs.39,760/- from the account of the complainant lying with o.p. no.3 and we do not find any justification for doing so by o.p. nos.1 and 2 in the context and their letter dt.24.9.09 and this act on the part of o.p. nos.1 and 2 amounts to clear deficiency on their part being service providers to their consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the petition of complaint is allowed ex parte against o.p. nos.1 and 2 with cost and against o.p. no.3 without cost. O.p. nos.1 and 2 directed to pay a sum of Rs.39,760/- (Rupees thirty nine thousand seven hundred sixty) only together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of withdrawal till the date of realization and are further directed to refund of the papers including the unused PDCs and to issue ‘no due certificate’ in favour of complainant and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization .
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.
_____Sd-_____ _______Sd-_______ ________Sd-________
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
