DATE OF FILING : 04-04-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 19-06-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 10-10-2012.
1. Sri Sanjay Kumar Dey,
son of Swapan Kumar Dey,
2. Sri Swapan Kumar Dey,
son of Kalipada Dey,
both are residing at 27/10, South Buxarah 1st Bye Lane,
Bakultala, P.S. Shibpur,
District –Howrah,
PIN – 7111 09.------------------------------------------------------ COMPLAINANTS.
- Versus -
State Bank of India,
( A Body Corporate Constitute under the
State Bank of India Act, XXIII, 1955)
1. Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Shibpur Branch, 218, G.T. Road,
P.S Shibpur, Howrah,
PIN – 711102.
2. Chief Manager,
State Bank of India, SARB,
9B, Esplanade East, P.S. Here Street,
Kolkata – 7000 69. ----------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant case was filed by complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986,
as amended against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ), 2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainants have prayed for Rs. 4.5 lacs together with litigation costs for harassment.
2. It appears from the complaint that the complainants were sanctioned an education loan by the O.Ps. for Rs. 1,51,500/- to be repaid as per the terms of the agreement ( Annexure A ). The complainants could not pay the installments within the stipulated period and informed the authority requesting for further time. On 25-01-2012 as per the prayer of the complainants the O.Ps. agreed and approved complainants’ proposal for compromise and directed the complainants to pay the balance amount i.e., Rs. 1,05,000/- to be paid in 10 installments within December, 2012. In compliance with the above terms and conditions dated 16-02-2012, the complainants paid Rs. 10,500/- as first installment on 21-03-2012 before the due date of the month of March, 2012. Subsequently to their utter surprise, the complainants received a summon from the 3rd Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Howrah, as the O.Ps. filed a case for realization of the amount. Even the complainants paid Rs. 21,000/- as 2nd and 3rd installments before the due date of April, 2012 on 30-03-2012. Hence the complaint.
3. The O.P. nos. 1 & 2, S.B.I.. in filing their written version challenged the maintainability of the case and contended interalia that there is no deficiency in service ; that the case has been filed for illegal gains ; that the bank is dealing with public money and its recovery is the sole concern of the O.Ps. So the complaint should be dismissed forthwith.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties three points arose for determination :
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable ?
ii) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
iii) Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
5. POINT NO. 1.
Thought the O.Ps. have filed a suit before the Ld. 3rd Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Howrah, for recovery of the balance amount, there is no bar in filing this complaint alleging deficiency in service in view of Section 3 of the C .P. Act, 1986 as amended. Hence the point is accordingly disposed of.
6. POINT NOS. 2 & 3
Both the points are taken up together for consideration. The Annexure ‘B’ dated 01-12-2011 reflects that the complainants prayed before the O.Ps. praying for further time as they were unable to pay the installments on the ground stated therein. The other annexures also reflect how the complainants being hard-put to repay the loan amount requested the State Bank Authority time and again for extension of time. Ultimately as per compromise proposal of the complainants the State Bank Authority on 16-02-2012 approved the compromise petition with the direction to pay the balance amount within December, 2012. In spite of the compromise petition dated 16-02-2012, the O.Ps. ( State Bank of India ) filed a case before the 3rd Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Howrah, for realization of the outstanding amount.
7. Ld. Lawyer for the O.Ps. State Bank Authority in support of their claim cited the decision reported in 2011(3) CPR 251 N.C. It is established principle of law that recovery of the loan is the bounden duty of the bank authority. But the citation cannot be invoked in this case as the dispute is not identical. In the cited decision there was nothing to show what action was taken by the bank authority against the request of the petitioner Dr. Guru Dayal Kumar Sinha. In the instant case the State Bank Authority approved the compromise proposal and granted time to the complainant till December, 2012. One cannot blow hot and cold at the same breath. In the instant case the O.Ps. State Bank of India granted time for repayment of the loan till December, 2012 and very conveniently filed a suit for recovery of the loan in spite of granting time.
8. In the mean time the complainant being at a loss what to do somehow collected the money and repaid the outstanding loan amount together with interest on 28-04-2012. The statement of account issued by the o.ps. clearly reflects that the closing balance is zero. The total amount claimed i.e., Rs. 4,84,369.65 has already been realized from the complainant. So we are of the view that the complainant has discharged their liabilities and nothing is due from them to the bank. But the harassment they had to withstand since after taking the educational loan and the ordeal they had to face for the money suit filed at the behest of the o.p. bank in spite of granting time vide the compromise proposal, we are of the view that the o.p. bank authority shall have compensated for the mental pain, agony and harassment. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 31 of 2012 ( HDF 31 of 2012 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the O.Ps.
The complainants are entitled to a compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony, pain and prolonged harassment from the o.ps.
The complainants are entitled to the litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- from the o.ps.
The o.ps. do pay the same ( Rs. 50,000 + Rs. 5,000/- ) to the complainants within 30 days from the date of this order failing the same shall carry interest @ Rs. 12% per annum.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
