20/03/15

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT

            This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Barasat, North 24-Paraganas in CC 248 of 2011 allowing the complaint with cost of Rs.2,000/- and passed necessary directions upon the OP No.1. 

            The case of the Complainant/Respondent, in short, is that he took a loan of Rs.1,30,000/- from the OP Bank on condition of repayment of loan by 48 EMIs @ Rs.3,684/-.  OP No.1 duly received the amount of Rs.3,684/- against EMI for the month of March 2008, but the OP Bank has been harassing the Complainant and, as such, the Complainant filed the complaint before the Learned District Forum praying for compensation of Rs.3 lakh, litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- and a direction upon the OP No.1 restraining the Bank from claiming the last 4 EMIs. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Learned District Forum held the Complainant to be a defaulter and observed that the Complainant did not pay the EMI properly.  It is contended that in spite of such finding the Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order.  It is submitted that the Complainant did not prefer any Appeal against the aforesaid observation of the Learned District Forum.  It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant Bank that the sum of Rs.28,406/- is still due as on date. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the Complainant took loan of Rs.1,30,000/- and made the repayment.  It is contended that the Bank received the repayment, but subsequently did not take into consideration the payments already made. 

            We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record.  It appears from the impugned judgment that the Learned District Forum held the Complainant to be admittedly a defaulter and he could not pay the instalments within the date fixed. 

            It appears from the statement of accounts submitted by the Bank that payments were not made regularly and the Bank claimed cheque bouncing charges on different dates.  The Complainant in paragraph 11 has also averred that the Bank informed him of the bouncing of cheque for the month of March 2008 on the ground of insufficiency of fund.  It is, therefore, evident that as the payments could not be made by the Complainant on due dates and there was bouncing of cheques, the Complainant being the defaulter cannot claim any relief in the instant case.  The Learned District Forum was not justified in allowing the complaint and making some unwarranted observations against the Appellant Bank. 

            The Appeal is allowed.  We set aside the impugned judgment and order.  The petition of complaint is dismissed.