C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/42
COMPLAINANT : Sri Biplab Sarkar
S/o Late Ranen Krishna Sarkar
Vill. Pravatnagar,
P.O. Jaypur, P.S. Haskhali,
Dist. Nadia.
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) Samar Chakraborty, Laxmi Mandol, Subhash Basu
Tarun Sarkar (Branch Manager)
2) Asim Sarkar (Peon), UCO Bank,
Badkulla Branch, Vill. + P.O. Badkulla,
Dist. Nadia
3) Bijan Das,
S/o Late Gobinda Lal Das,
Vill. Suravisthan (N)
P.O. Badkulla, P.S. Taherpur, Dist. Nadia
4) C.R. Ghosh, General Manager (Recovery) Appellate
Authority UCO Bank, Recovery Department
Head Office, 10, BTM Sarani, Kol – 01
- Superintendent of Police, Nadia, Krishnagar, Nadia
6) Sr. Branch Manager, LICI, Krishnagar – 2,
Krishnagar, Nadia.
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 16th September, 2010
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that in 2006, one Samar Chakraborty of UCO Bank, Badkulla Branch took Rs. 1,55,000/- from him through one Asim Sarkar in order to sanction cash credit loan. His further contention is that up to May 07, 2009 his transaction with the Bank was not bad. Thereafter, the Branch Manager one Tarun Sarkar asked him to submit the deed of his house which he did not previously submit. Even he along with others threatened him and his family members after visiting his house for not submitting that deed. He lodged a complaint at Taherpur P.S. against this and also to the DIG of police under Right to Information Act, 2005. No sanction letter was issued in his favour regarding cash credit loan and its limitation up to 3 lakhs or 5 lakhs. He also submits that through a written statement from the Sr. Manager he learnt that his house building was mortgaged against the loan which was also valued by a chartered engineer. He has raised question how the Manager of bank got the description of his property which he did not at all mortgage with the bank and also how the IGR copy of his deed was handed over by the Manager. It is his further submission that up to 2009 he did not submit the deed of his house building and for this the OP bank did not ask him in writing to file the original deed, rather he submits that he deposited 5 LIC bonds before the bank and on 23.10.09 he learnt that those bonds were assigned by the bank which is a quite illegal act on the part of the OP bank. So he has prayed to direct the OP to return the deed of his land along with 5 LIC bonds and also to repay Rs. 1,55,000/- – R s. 50,000/- = Rs. 1,05,000/- + interest of Rs. 1,50,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- as compensation in total Rs. 2,65,000/- + further interest.
Written version is filed on behalf of the OP No. 1 to 5 jointly in which it is their contention that this case is not maintainable in its present form and manner and this case is totally civil in nature. They have denied all the allegations made by the complainant. Rather it is their submission that the complainant took a cash credit loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the bank on 23.03.06. At that time all the related security documents were duly signed by the parties. At the time of sanctioning loan the complainant offered his house building property as collateral security and deposited the certified copy of title deed and IGR receipt of the said deed to create his mortgage of his house building property. Subsequently the complainant took the IGR receipt in good faith from the OPs to collect the original title deed from the registry office and to deposit the said deed before the bank. Though he collected the deed, but did not deposit the said deed before the bank. The complainant never paid Rs. 1,55,000/- to Mr. Asim Sarkar and the Manager. Rather he deposited Rs. 50,000/- through the cash counter by signing deposit slip for the FD as per terms of the loan. He also executed the related security documents for Rs. 50,000/- only at the time of sanctioning of his credit facility without raising any objection. The complainant and his wife deposited 5 LIC policies as collateral security of the said loan by executing all the necessary documents in favour of the bank and out of those 5 policies 4 were assigned in favour of the bank and one is still pending for assignment. None visited the house of the complainant on behalf of the bank to collect the original title deed of the complainant. The complainant is a defaulter and has stopped payment of the loan instalment. This complainant deposited another deed instead of the deed of his house property before this bank in presence of one Bijan Das. In spite of repeated demand he did not deposit the original title deed of his house property before the bank as collateral security. So by this act of this complainant he has defrauded the OP bank. Therefore, he has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs along with oral and documentary evidences laid by the parties it is available on record that this complainant Sri Biplab Sarkar prayed for cash credit loan from the UCO Bank, Badkulla Branch and at his prayer cash credit loan amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- was sanctioned in his favour. This loan amount was sanctioned on 27.03.06 vide UCO Bank, No. MISC/Adv./43216/05-06. From this sanction letter it is also available that at the time of taking loan the complainant made collateral mortgage of his land plot No. 2540/N/A/, Khatian No. Rs. 2632 and LRS -3086 for Rs. 3,80,000/- and fixed deposit Rs. 50,000/- and LIC bonds also. The complainant’s specific case is that at the time of taking loan he paid Rs. 1,55,000/- to the OP No. 1, Samar Chakraborty through the peon of the bank, one Asim Sarkar. But he has failed to state the specific date of making such payment, nor he has stated for what reason this payment was done by him to this Manager. Even there is no witness of such payment. No PW has stated in his deposition that the complainant made such payment of Rs. 1,55,000/- to the then Manager, i.e., the OP No. 1 at the time of taking loan. At the time of argument the complainant has frankly submitted that he has no documentary evidence or any witness to prove the above cited payment. On the other hand, on the side of the OPs it is categorically stated that the complainant deposited fixed deposit amounting of Rs. 50,000/- as lien of loan which is not denied by the complainant and also it is available from Para – 7 of his complaint that he has claimed Rs. 1,05,000/- out of which 1,55,000/- allegedly paid by him. From the document of the complainant it is also revealed that there was an agreement of mortgage of his house building with the bank and to that extent plot No., khatian No. etc, with the valuation of his property was inserted in the loan sanction order. Even in the application of the complainant, it is stated the description of his house by him under Daag No. 2540, Khatian No. 2632, LR No. 3086 vide deed No. 3473 of 2005. The OP has categorically stated that at the time of sanctioning loan the original deed was not submitted by the complainant and he submitted the original receipt issued by the Registry office. The copy of IGR is filed by the OPs from which it is available that the deed No. 3973 stands in the name of one Saraswati Sarkar and the complainant, Biplab Sarkar. From the argument of both the parties we find that this deed was in the custody of the complainant and he has not submitted this deed before the OP bank though at the time of taking loan he mortgaged this property with the bank. It is also available that at the time of sanctioning loan by the bank he submitted another deed to the bank which was not at all mortgaged to the bank. Therefore, we find the conduct of the complainant is not satisfactory at all. He did not act as per terms and conditions of the bank on which he signed at the time of taking loan. It is a gross fraud practised by the complainant upon the bank for which no explanation is given by him. From the statement of the complainant’s loan account submitted by the OP bank we find that transactions in the account are going on, but the complainant did not do the part of his duty. He has made some other allegations against the OPs on which he stated that he lodged a complaint at the P.S. But from the report of the SP, dtd. 12.01.10 under Information Act it is available that on 14.08.09 this complainant did not come to the P.S. for lodging any complaint and also forcibly taking of his deed by one Bijan Das on 22.08.09 was found to be false on enquiry. The police report also speaks that during inquiry it was found that the total matter is a breach of contact between the petitioner and UCO Bank, Badkulla Branch and the matter being civil in nature no action was taken on the side of the police.
Therefore, on a careful perusal of the facts of this case along with the annexed documents filed by the parties and also after hearing both the parties our considered view is that the complainant took a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the bank. At the time of taking such loan he mortgaged his property under deed No. 3473 of 2005 with the bank along with fixed deposit of Rs. 50,000/- and 5 LIC bonds. It is also established that the complainant actually did not hand over the original title deed No. 3473 of 2005 to the bank. Regarding payment of Rs. 1,55,000/- which is mentioned by the complainant at the time of sanctioning loan, there is neither oral or documentary evidence to establish this case. We have already discussed that the complainant has failed to state the exact date of such alleged payment to the OPs mentioned above.
In view of the above discussions we further hold that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case. We also hold that the complainant has miserably failed to prove and establish his case by cogent evidence. So he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/42 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
