Tripura

West Tripura

CC/5/2017

Shri Sankar Banik. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regional Manager, Vijaya Bank & 2 others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.B.Datta, Mr.S.Dey, Mr.S.Miah.

30 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC-  05  of 2017

Sri Sankar Banik,
S/O- Late Surendra Chandra Banik,
Santipara, Agartala, West Tripura.    ….....…...Complainant.

         VERSUS

      1. Vijaya Bank,
Represented by its
Regional Manager,
106, Rajgarh Road,
Rehabari Street, 
Guwahati, Assam.

      2. Sr. Branch Manager,
Vijaya Bank, 
Durga Chowmuhani Branch,
Agartala, West Tripura.

      3. Shri Arun Kumar, 
Sr. Branch Manager,
Vijaya Bank,
Durga Chowmuhani Branch, 
Agartala.                    .......... Opposite parties.

                      __________PRESENT__________
 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant        : Sri Bidyut Datta,
                          Sri Sanjoy Saha,
                          Sahjahan Miah,
                          Sri Nepal Majumdar,
                          Sri Haradhan Sarkar,
                          Sri Sanjoy Saha,
                          Advocates.    
                  
    For the Opposite Party        : Sri Subhashis De,
                            Advocate.

         JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   30.05.2017

J U D G M E N T

        This case arises on the petition filed by Sankar Banik against Vijaya Bank. Petitioner's case in short is that he approached the Senior Branch Manager of Vijaya Bank on 03.11.16 for a house loan. The Branch Manager asked him to submit all papers like Khatian, Title Deed, plan for checking Civil report for sanctioning the bank loan. Accordingly complainant submitted all papers. The bank collected the report and petitioner paid Rs.1000/- to open a joint SB account in the bank. On 07.11.16 agents of Kotak Life Insurance visited the house of the complainant on the advise of Branch Manager of Vijaya Bank. The agents asked him to open a policy for securing bank loan. The purchaser, the complainant is to issue a cheque for Rs.63,670/- in favour of Kotak Life Insurance. They again asked to submit papers. All papers submitted and Rs.2000/- was paid for legal scrutiny report. Thereafter insurance agents asked for payment of Rs.63,670/- in cash. The agent told him that for the house loan of Rs.8 lacs petitioner have to pay Rs.63,670/- every year as premium. Complainant did not agree with it. Then the loan was not sanctioned. Petitioner therefore claimed that he was harassed by the activities of the bank manager, claimed amount of Rs.5 lacs as compensation. 

2.        O.P. Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank appeared filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated that the petitioner, Sankar Banik did not produce the valuation report and was not interested for house loan. One Sujit, employee of the David Consultants has taken the cheque for Rs.63,670/- in the name of the insurance. Sujit Debnath was called and manager asked him to return the cheque. Branch Manager has no deficiency of service at all. 

3.        On the basis of the contention raised by both the parties following points cropped for determination;
        (I) Whether the Bank Manager, Vijaya Bank has any role in the matter of insisting the petitioner to purchase life Insurance Policy from Kotak Mahindra?
        (II) Whether the O.P. has deficiency of service?
 
4.        Petitioner produced paying slip for Deposit Account, cheque, Valuation Certificate, Photograph, Original Registered Deed, Original Approval Municipal Plan, Estimate, I.T. Returns, Exhibit- 1 Series. Also produced the statement on affidavit of Sankar Banik, petitioner of this case. 

5.        O.P. Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank produced the Loan Application, Aadhar card, PAN Card, Voter ID, Diligence report, building permission, LSR report, CIBIL report, HOC, copy of E-mail sent to Vijaya Bank. 
6.        O.P. also produced the statement on affidavit of Sanjay Debroy, valuer of the Vijaya Bank. O.P. also produced  the statement on affidavit of Arun Kumar, Senior Branch Manager. 

On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the above points.

                Findings:
8.        We have gone through the paying slip deposit, valuation certificate, photograph, registered deed, original  approval of municipal plan, Income Tax return, also gone through the statement of Sankar Banik. P.W. 1 Sankar Banik stated that he submitted all relevant documents and opened savings account. According to him the agent of Kotak Insurance stated him that loanee has to pay yearly premium Rs.63,670/-. He stated that Senior Manager, Arun Kumar sent the agent to collect the premium of the policy. He stated that all the documents would be returned as the loan was not finally sanctioned. 

9.        Arun Kumar, Senior Branch Manager on the other hand stated that they conducted unit visit and brought the will deed and after showing the same the will was taken. According to him Sankar Banik came to him asking to return the application. From the evidence it is clear that all necessary formalities was done and O.P. was ready to give the loan. From the evidence on record it is found that one agent of Kotak Mahindra insisted the petitioner to purchase the life insurance policy and pay Rs.63,670/-, accordingly the cheque was issued. The cheque is also filed with the slip. 

10.        O.P.W., Arun Kumar in his statement on affidavit stated that due  diligence report was submitted by Sujit Debnath of M/s David Consultant Pvt. Ltd. on 06.11.16 as per the format provided by the bank. It is surprising that bank manager, Vijaya Bank appointed Sujit Debnath, M/S David Consultants Pvt. Ltd to verify the documents submitted by the complainant to file due diligence report.
11.        It also comes out from the evidence of the O.P.W. that the cheque for Rs.63,670/- issued by the complainant returned to the  payee petitioner only on the direction of the branch manager, Arun Kumar. O.P. Branch Manager did not agree in the matter of his direction for purchasing the policy certificate from the Kotak Life Insurance. But his communication with Sujit Debnath, the agent of the Kotak Insurance working in the David Consultancy clearly comes out from the evidence. From the evidence of Sankar Banik it is clear that he had to withdraw the loan application when the agent insisted him to purchase the policy by yearly payment of Rs.63,670/-. It is clear that all formalities was observed by the petitioner. Nationalized bank is not supposed to appoint a Life Insurance corporation agent to verify the documents and submit the verification report. 
12.        The wife of the petitioner Madhucchanda Banik issued the cheque in the name of Kotak Life Insurance for Rs.63,670/-. The valuation sheet, other documents are produced. Residence verification report is given by David Consultancy Corporate agent of the Kotak. Other information was also collected by the David Consultancy. So communication between the David Consultancy and the Manager, Vijaya Bank clearly comes out from this evidence. Petitioner consumer produced all the documents and he was eligible for getting the loan for Rs.8 lacs. But he had to withdraw it because of pressure on him for payment of Rs.63,700/- every year as insurance premium. O.P. failed to assign any reason for not sanctioning the loan finally and only stated that petitioner had withdrawn application. Deficiency of bank manager is clearly comes out from the evidence when he appointed Insurance Agent for document verification. Matter of conspiracy with the corporate agent of the insurance is to be investigated upon. The consumer court can not go into that aspects. 
12.            We find that there are deficiency of service by the Branch Manager who failed to sanction the loan after prolong period. Petitioner was harassed. For this harassment petitioner consumer is entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs.35,000/-. All documents as submitted by the petitioner before the bank and those were unnecessarily kept in their custody, that should be returned without any delay. O.P. will have to pay Rs.5,000/- as legal expenses of the petitioner. In total O.P. bank manager is to pay Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner. The amount is to be paid within 2 months, if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.

Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.