This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant.
The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant took a loan from the opposite party bank. The loan account number is 31537237779 and the pass book A/c. number is 31522126805 which has been repaid by the complainant on 31.12.2014. The loan was a term loan and the complainant took loan of Rs.25,000/- by depositing two Kisan Bikas Patra as security deposit and it is agreed by and between the complainant and opposite party bank that after repayment of total loan amount the K.V.Ps will be returned by the opposite party bank to the complainant.
The complainant further states that after repayment of total loan amount the complainant wrote letters to the opposite party bank and also visited several times for return of the two K.V.Ps. but opposite party bank failed to refund the same. Lastly on 30th August , 2017 the complainant wrote a letter and requested the opposite party bank for returned of the KVPs but till date the opposite party bank did not return the KVPs to the complainant. The complainant further states that being a small business man the complainant purchased the KVPs but when the complainant is in a distressed condition the complainant could not utilize his money and for this reason he is suffering irreparable loss and also suffering mentally. Having no other alternative the complainant has come before this Forum for an order for return of the aforesaid KVPs being No.31CE835106 and 31CE835107 respectively valued Rs.10,000/- each. The complainant also prayed for litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-, Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation for mental pain and agony and Rs.30,000/- for other relief and relieves, totalling Rs.85,000/-.
The opposite party contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against him. This opposite party submits that during his loan period he has paid the amount as per norms of the Bank and he was satisfied with the service of the bank and liquidated the loan amount as per terms of the agreement but all on a sudden due to influence by other persons he lodged this claim before this Forum without any valid reason. The complainant claims two Kishan Vikas Patra to the extent of an amount Rs.10,000/- each total Rs.20,000/- which kept as security as lien against said loan. That after liquidate his loan amount the petitioner is very much reluctant to collect the said KVP from the bank authority as the maturity of the said KVP was on 29.6.2019. Accordingly the allegations are not at all acceptable in the eye of law. Neither any loss of interest in the said KVP nor any follow up for collecting the same from the bank by the petitioner before filing the above case.
This opposite party further submits that after transfer of earlier Manager in the month of October, 2017 the present Chief Manager intends to return back the said KVP which is lying with the bank against the earlier loan of the petitioner. So, this opposite party prayed for an order to drop the proceeding against the opposite party. The allegation against the bank are not at all maintainable. It is the bad intention of the complainant to lowdown the prestige and dignity of the bank. The allegation in the plaint are purely concockted.
Issues/ point for consideration in this case are;
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken up together for easiness of the discussion of this case.
1). In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record it transpires that the complainant is a consumer as provided by the spirit of Section-2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer protection Act, 1986. The complainant here is a consumer of the opposite party as the complainant for the long time is the customer of the opposite party bank. The complainant took loan of Rs.25,000/- by depositing two Kishan Vikas Patra valued of Rs.10,000/- each as security deposit and after repayment of loan amount though agreed to return back the same but the opposite patty bank could not return the Kishan Vikas Patra after repayment of the loan amount in time. So, he is entitled to get service from the opposite party as consumer.
2). Both the complainant and the opposite party are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly. For mental agony and other expenses which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
3). The case of the complainant is that the complainant took loan of Rs.25,000/- by depositing two KVPs. Total valued Rs.20,000/- as security deposit and it is agreed by and between the complainant and the opposite party bank that after repayment of full loan amount the opposite party bank will return back the KVPs to the complainant. The complainant attended the office of the opposite party bank but the opposite party neglecting the request of the complainant to return back the KVPs. In support of his case the complainant argued that after repayment of total loan amount the complainant attended the office of the opposite party bank but on varies pretext the opposite party bank did not returned back the said KVPs in question. At last on 30.08.2017 the complainant by written application requested the opposite party bank to return back the said KVP but till the filing of the abovenoted case opposite party bank did not return back the KVPs. The complainant states and argued that he compelled to file the case before this Forum.
The opposite party submitted written version. In the written version and in the non-maintainability petition the opposite party states that the case is not maintainable and the case is barred by U/s.39 of Specific Relief Act. The opposite party bank admitted the fact that the complainant was satisfied with the service of the bank and liquidated the loan amount as per terms of the agreement. Further the opposite party bank states that after liquidate the loan amount the complainant is very much reluctant to collect the said KVP from the bank authority and the maturity date of the KVPs were on 29.6.2019. So, neither any loss of interest in the said KVPs nor any follow up for collecting the same from the bank by the complainant before filing the above case.
In the written version, non-maintainable petition and written argument the opposite party states and argued that it is completely false allegation against the Bank Manager. The opposite party bank further argued and states that the complainant did not contact with the opposite party bank and therefore it is presumed that the complainant was not interested to collect those KVPs before the maturity. The opposite party bank states that as per oral advice of the Ld. Forum the bank authority deposited the original KVPs on 24.01.2018. Having received show cause notice the opposite party bank intends to handed over the KVPs receipt to the complainant before the Ld. Forum. The delay or latches in refunding the KVPs does not arise and which was absolutely unintentional on the part of the opposite party bank. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank and the instant case is liable to be dismissed against the opposite party bank.
Having gone through the contents of the complaint it is crystal clear that the opposite party bank has sheer deficiency in service and the opposite party bank did not bother to sent any notice to the complainant. It was also duty of the bank to send notice so that the complainant could aware for returning back the said KVPs. The opposite party bank states in its briefs notes of argument that they are always working for the interest of poor villagers and agriculturist and middle class people for their day to day requirement. Having received notice from the ld. Forum the opposite party bank intends to handed over the KVP receipts to the complainant. Though unintentional on the part of the opposite party bank but there is deficiency on the part of the opposite party bank. After received the summons the opposite party bank deposited d the KVPs of the complainant and till date the KVPs are lying in the custody of Ld. Forum.
So, we are in the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get relief from the opposite party bank. Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the Consumer Complaint being No.239/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest with a litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant for mental pain and agony.
The complainant is directed to receive the KVPs which are lying in the case record by furnishing identical prove.
In the event of failure to comply with the order the opposite party shall pay fine of Rs.50/- for each day delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount if any in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
