IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC /30/2017.
Date of Filing: 15.032017. Date of Final Order: 14.06.2018.
Complainant: Taju Sk. S/O Late Obed Sk, Vill. Bhakuri, P.O. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742165.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: The Senior Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Berhampore,
15, Square East Road, Foujdari Court, P.O.& P.S. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742101.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri Partha Sarathi Ghosh.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri Jayanta Bagchi.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati…………………. President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty ……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati President.
This is a complaint U/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986.
One Taju Sk ( herein after referred to as the complainant) filed the case against the Senior Branch Manager, SBI, Berhampore Branch (herein after referred to as the OP) alleging deficiency in service.
The gist of the complaint case may be summarized as follows:-
The complainant being a business man, had a cash credit Loan Account being No. CC 30803912536 on and from 22.06.2009. During continuation of his said cash credit loan, the complainant faced financial crisis in 2015 and his Cash Credit Loan Account declared as N.P.A on 23.7.14 by the OP. The OP issued an Advocate’s Letter under the provisions of S.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act, 2002 upon the complainant on 28.12.2015. Even after receiving the half of the total due amount, the OP started annoying the complainant and the complainant deposited Rs.3, 00,000/- during the period from 15l.3.16 to 28.09.16. That even after repayment of the entire loan amount, the OP did not issue N.O.C. in favour or the complainant. The complainant sent an Advocate’s Letter on 31.01.17 requesting the OP for issuance of NOC but the OP, without issuing any N.O.C, sent Ld. Lawyer’s letter on 07.02.17 claiming outstanding amount of Rs.60,320/- . The complainant is a bona fide consumer of the OP.
He claimed Rs.1, 00,000/- as compensation and a direction upon the OP for issuance of NOC in favour of the complainant.
The OP put his appearance through his Ld. Advocate and filed W/v on 01.08.2017 inter alia denying the material allegations made out in the complaint, contending that the complaint case is not maintainable as the complainant has no locus standi to file the case. The OP admitted that the complainant took cash Credit Loan from the OP on and from 22.06.2009 by executing several documents and the Cash Credit Account of the complainant turned into a N.P.A on 23.07.14 for non-payment of outstanding dues of Rs.2,95,971/- . Ultimately, the OP started proceeding under the SRFAESI Act and issued notice U/S 13(2) of the said Act on 28.12.15 to the complainant and after receiving the notice, the complainant paid Rs.3, 00,000- on different dates during the period from 04.02.16 to 28.07.16 but did not pay the entire outstanding dues with interest, cost and other charges and after adjustment of the said amount of Rs.3, 00,000/- , Rs.40, 009.77 + Legal charges are due and lying unpaid by the complainant.
The OP has asserted that the OP is not in a position to issue NOC in favour of the complainant due to non-payment of the entire outstanding dues. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
The OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
On the basis of the written complaint and W/V, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case:
Point for Decision.
- Is the complainant a ‘’consumer’’ under the provisions of C. P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, as alleged?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for, in this case?
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 &2.
Ld. Agent for the complainant submits that the complainant is a consumer under the OP, as he has a Cash Credit Account No. 30803912536 with the OP on and from 22.06.2009.
In reply the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the complainant is not a consumer in terms of the C.P.Act,1986. It is argued that a consumer does not include a person who hires or avails of services for a consideration for any commercial purpose. It is also argued that the complainant has asserted in his complaint that he took Term Loan from the OP for running his business and it is undoubtedly for commercial purpose.
We have gone through the Written complaint, W/V , evidence adduced by the parties, W/A filed by both parties.
Admittedly, the complainant has a Cash Credit Account on and from 22.06.2009 with the OP Bank and he took the loan for commercial purpose. We find valid substance in the submissions of the Ld. Advocate for the OP that a “consumer’ does not include a person who hires/avails of any service for a consideration for any commercial purpose. In this respect we have placed our reliance on a decision passed on 12.02.2008 by the Hon’ble National Commission and reported in 2018 (2) CPR 130 (NC) wherein it is held that “the complainant had availed of service of the Bank namely loan for his business and also the loan was cash credit loan. Thus, it is clear that this is a case of hiring/availing of service of the Op ban for commercial purpose”.
Therefore, in view of exception in the definition of the “consumer’ the complainant cannot be termed as “consumer” as envisaged U/S 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. That being the case, the complainant has no locus standi to raise a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is not a “consumer “of the OP in terms of the provisions of the C. P. Act, 1986.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claim amount is also within the pecuniary level of the District Forum.
The Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the complaint is not maintainable and this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainant is not a consumer.
On a careful consideration we find that the alleged cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claim amount is also within the pecuniary level of this Forum but the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer of the OP.
The points are thus disposed of against the complainant.
Point Nos. 3&4.
Ld. Agent for the complainant submits that the complainant paid entire dues to the OP but the OP did not issue NOC which is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
In reply the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the complainant has outstanding dues. As a result, his account was declared N.P.A and proceedings under the SRFAESI Act was started against the complainant. It is further argued that Rs.40, 009.77 + local charges was due as on 28.09.2016 and the OP is not in a position to issue NOC before the realization of the outstanding amount from the complainant. He argued that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.
We have gone through the written complaint, W/V , evidence adduced by both parties and W/A. We have already held that the complainant is not a consumer. Moreover, the documents filed by the OP proved that proceedings U/S 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act, 2002 was started as the loan account was declared as N.P.A for non-payment of dues in time. The complainant has alleged that the OP did not issue NOC in spite of payment of entire dues by the complainant but the complainant has failed to prove the said fact.
Considering the entire materials on record, we find that the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. We think that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Reasons for Delay.
The case was filed on 1503.17 and admitted on 19.5.17. The OP put his appearance and filed W/v on 01.08.17. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in view of the provisions U/S 13(3A) of the C. P. Act and the delay in deposal of the case has been explained in day to day orders.
In the result, the complaint case fails.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence, it is Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 30/2017 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP without any order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website: confonet.nic.in
