BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 36 of 2011
Sri Monoranjan Roy, …………………………………………….. Complainant.
-V/S-
1. The State Bank of India,
Narsingpur A.D. Branch, Cachar,
Pin-488115. Opp. Party.
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Sri Sunil Debnath, Advocate for the complainant.
Sri Chunilal Bhattacharjee, Advocate for the O.P.
Date of Evidence……………………….. 05-03-2012, 10-07-2012
Date of written argument……………… 07-07-2017
Date of oral argument…………………. 20-12-2017
Date of judgment………………………. 08-01-2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath,
- Sri Monoranjan Roy brought this complaint under the Provision of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the State Bank of India, Narsingpur A.D. Branch (refer as Bank) for refund of Rs.50,000.00 along with interest and compensation for disservice etc.
- Brief facts:-
The complainant stood as guarantor of Sri Nani Gopal Roy in respect of loan of Rs.50,000.00. The said loan sanctioned by the O.P-Bank on 04-06-2001. The complainant being guaranter deposited Rs.50,000.00 by a fixed deposit (STDR) No.140256. The said STDR was kept by the Bank as collateral security of the loan and accordingly the complainant executed an agreement in Form ‘A’-2. The loanee was defaulter to repay the loan to the Bank but the Bank without any consent and notice to the complainant adjusted the said STDR amount with interest to realize the loan amount. Hence, the complainant being aggrieved brought the instant case.
- The Bank in its W/S stated inter-alia that the STDR of Rs.50,000/- has been adjustment with repayment of loan of Sri Nani Gopal Roy because as per agreement the Complainant agreed to adjust his deposited amount in the event of defaulter of the loanee. The loanee was defaulter for which amount in the STDR of the complainant has been adjusted. As such as per the Bank there is no deficiency of service or disservice.
- During hearing the complainant deposed on oath and exhibited documents. The Bank examined Sri Khairul Anam, the Manager of SBI Narsingpur Branch. After closing evidence the complainant submitted written argument but Bank did not submit written argument. However, I have heard oral argument of both sides’ counsels and perused the evidence on record including written argument of the complainant.
- In this case, it is admitted fact that the complainant was guarantor of Sri Nani Gopla Roy in respect of an amount of loan sanctioned by the Bank. It is also admitted fact that the complainant deposited a STDR of RS.50,000/- as collectoral security for that loan and executed an agreement. It is also admitted fact that the loanee was defaulter to repay loan and accordingly the Bank adjusted the amount of Rs.50,000/- with accrued interest of the said amount of the complainant with the repayment of loan and as per agreement. But plea of the complainant is that the Bank should take attempt at the first step to realize the loan amount from the loanee and if fail due to non-availability of fund in the hand of the loanee than only after giving proper notice to the complainant may adjustment the STDR for repayment of loan.
- However to justify the above plea the complainant deposed on oath. The O.P-Bank also examined its Manager to support the defense plea.
- In this case, the dispute is regarding adjustment of amount of STDR of guarantor to the repayment of unpaid loan amount of Nani Gopal Roy. The said subject matter is outside the ambit of purchasing any goods or purchasing or hiring any service from trade or service provider of Section 2.1(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The relation between the loanee and Bank was not Consumer and Trader/ Service provider but borrower and creditor. The Complainant is guarantor of the borrower for repayment of loan. So, Complainant is also not a Consumer in respect of loan.
- Of course, the plea of the complainant is that the STDR of the complainant ought not to be adjustment at the given situation rather the Bank could realize the loan amount from the loanee because the loanee is a govt. servant. But in my considered view, the plea and relief stated in the complaint petition may be brought before the Civil Court for adjudication. The said dispute cannot be adjudicate in the Consumer Forum by adopting the summery procedure.
- Hence, in my considered view, this District Forum has no jurisdiction to try or adjudicate the instant dispute. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed on contest without cost. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties. Given under my hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 8th day of January,2018.
