IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC 141/2013.
Date of Filing: 10.12.2013. Date of Final Order:
Complainant: Ajit Kumar Kundu S/O Kamala Kanta Kundu,
Vill & P.O. & P.S. Raghunathganj, Dist. Murshidabad
-Vs-
Opposite Parties: 1.Senior Manager, State Bank of India,
Jangipur Branch, P.O. & P.S. Raghunathganj, Dist.Murshidabad, Pin- 742225
2.Branch Manager, State Bank of India
Lalbagh Branch, P.O. & Dist. Murshidabad.
Pin- 742149
3. Regional Manager, State Bank of India,
Berhampore Regional Office, Region-II
15, Square East Road, P.O. & P.S. Berhampore
Dist. Murshidabad. Pin- 742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri Bidut Mukherjee.
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 the C. P. Act, 1986.
One Ajit Kumar Kundu (herein after referred to as the complainant) filed the case against the Senior Manager, SBI, Janipgur Branch and two others (herein after referred to as the OPs) claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on the allegation of deficiency in service.
The complaint case may be stated in the following manner:-
The complainant is a Government employee and he has a consumer of the State Bank of India, Jangipur Branch vide S/B account No.31937789103 . The complainant issued a bearer cheque being No. 980333amounting to Rs.20,000/- on 19.11.13 to one Somnath Bhowmick for repayment of loan. The said Somnath Bhowmick sent a notice to the complainant on 22.11.13 stating that the SBI, Jangipur Branch dishonoured the said cheque on the ground of insufficient fund. After receiving the said notice the complainant made enquiry and found that he had sufficient amount on 29.11.13. He met the Branch Manager of SBI, Jangipur Branch and enquired for non-encashment of the cheque amount of Rs.20,000/- in spite of sufficient amount in his account and the Branch Manager informed him that the account was set hold . The Branch Manager, SBI, Jangipur Branch did not issue any written information to the complainant in spite of repeated requests and advised him to contact the Branch Manager , SBI, Lalbagh . It is the version of the complainant that the complainant took a personal loan of Rs.1, 00,000/- from the SBI, Lalbagh Branch on 20.10.2006 being account No. 30086419359 but he could not pay the instalments regularly due to death of his mother and marriage of his daughter. The complainant requested the OP Nos. 2&3 to disburse the said “set hold” amount but of no result.
The OPs are negligent in providing proper service to the complainant. The complainant prayed for Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation from the OPs.
The OPs put their appearance and filed their W/V on 27.02.2014, inter alia denying the allegations made out in the complaint, contending that the complaint is not maintainable and the complaint is vague, mala fide and untrue. It is the version of the OPs that the OPs are not aware of the fact that the complainant took loan from one Somnath Bhowmick or not. The specific case of the OPs is that the complainant took personal loan amounting Rs.1, 00,000/- from the SBI, Lalbagh Branch on 20.10.16 being loan account No. 30086419359 on execution of several documents with undertaking to repay the loan amount as per terms of the loan but he failed to repay the installments as per terms and conditions of the sanctioned loan. The complainant prayed for 4 month’s time and he deposited Rs.5000/- for each month vide his letter dt. 07.07.12 but he did not keep his words by repaying his loan. Due to non-payment of installments of his personal loan the OP No.1 had no other alternative but to “set hold” his S/B account No. 31937789103 of SBI, Jangipur on 26.03.13 with intimation to the complainant. The OP No.1 also sent its letter dt. 20.7.13 intimating the said matter regarding the “set hold’ of the said S.B Account of the complainant due to non-payment of the said personal loan as per reference letter of the complainant dt. 18.07.2013.
The complainant also took a house building loan being a/c No. 11176290390 for Rs.2,50,000/- and present loan account being No. 11176290403 for Rs.70,000/- from SBI from SBI, ADB, Berhampore Branch but he failed to repay the loan amount as per terms and conditions of sanction letter and he has huge outstanding dues. There is no latches on the part of the OPs to set hold his account for non-payment of installments and there is no negligence on the part of the OPs. The OPs prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
On the basis of the complaint and W/V , the following points are framed for the proper adjudication of the case.
Points for Decision.
- Is the complainant is consumer as per provisions of the C. P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Have the OPs deficiency in service, as alleged?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons.
Point No.1
The Ld. Agent for the complainant submits that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs as he hired services of the OPs by opening a Bank account.
In reply the Ld. Advocate for the Ops has said nothing.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs in terms of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Point No. 2
Ld. Agent for the complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and claim amount is also within the pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
Ld. Agent for the Ops submits that the complaint is baseless.
With due regard to the complaint petition, W/V and the documents filed by both parties, we find that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions to entertain the complaint.
Point No.3
Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the complainant is a bona fide consumer of the OP No.1 as he has S/B account being No. 31937789103 . It is urged that the OP No.1 “set hold’ the amount of Rs.1,22,200/- as on 26.03.13 without any basis. It is further argued that the OP No.1 had no reason for encashment of cheque No.980333 dt. 19.11.13 as the complainant had sufficient balance in his account. He argued that the OPs had no authority to set hold any account of any customer without consent of the account holder. He draws out attention to a decision reported in AIR 1975 Madras 220 wherein it is held that “bank is bound to act according to the directions given by the customer”. It is further argued that the OPs had not acted in accordance with the guideless of the bank authority. It is urged that the there is no agreement between the parties to deduct or debit any amount from the savings account of the complainant and it is in violation of rules and regulations. In this respect he draws our attention to a decision reported in AIR 93(SC) 954.
He argued that the OPs have deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the OPs for deficiency in service.
He further argued that the complainant has cleared all his dues and it is reflected in the letter issued by the Chief Manager Vide No. GEN No.41/44 dt. 23.05.16.
In reply the Ld. Advocate for the OPs submits that the complainant was a habitual defaulter in payment of his loan amount and the complainant has one S/B account with the OP No.1 Bank being No. 31937789103 and he had also three other loan accounts, 2 personal loan account amounting Rs.1, 00,000/- , Rs.70, 000/- respectively and one house building loan amounting Rs.2, 50,000/- with the SBI. It is argued that the complainant was in the habit of taking loan but as he did not repay the loan amount as per terms and conditions , he was a defaulter and his present loan account was turned into a NPA for which the SBI account of the complainant with the OP No.1 was “set hold’’as per rules of the Bank. It is argued that the OPs have filed documents in connection with the accounts of the complainant and it true that the complainant has already repaid all his dues.
It is argued that the OPs have no deficiency in service and he prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
We have gone through the complaint petition, W/v ,the documents filed by both parties, W/A and the decisions referred to by the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant.
Admittedly, the complainant had a S/B account with the OP No.1 Bank being No. 31937789103.
Admittedly, the complaint had three other loan accounts with the SBI, two personal loans and one house building loan.
On going through the documents filed by the OPs we find that the loan account being No. 30086419359 with the OP No.2 was turned to NPA for non-payment of loan amount and the OP No.2 vide his letter dt. 20.7.13 intimated the complainant about the fact of holding the account No. 31937789103. So, it is not correct to say that the deposited cheque amount of Rs.20,000/- was not enchased without any fault of the Complainant ,as the account was “set hold’ and the fact of holding the account was duly intimated by the OP No.1 to the complainant vide letter dt. 20.7.2013. So, it is not correct to say that the complainant was not aware of the fact his S/B account was set hold without any reason. With due regard to the decision referred to by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant we think that the said decisions are not at all applicable in the present case as the facts and circumstance of those cases are different from the present case. In the present case, the complainant took personal loan on certain terms and conditions and the S/B account of the complainant was set held for non-payment of his personal loan. It cannot be said that the measures taken by the OPs for realization of the loan amount was illegal. The complaint has already repaid his loan amount but the question is whether the “ set hold’ of the S/B account for non-payment of his personal loan is justified or not.
On going through the materials on record, we have no hesitation to hold that the measures taken by the OPs by holding the S/B account of the complainant as personal loan account of the complainant was NPA, was not illegal or irregular.
We hold that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. We think that the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. We think that the complainant should be dismissed without cost.
Reasons for Delay.
The case was admitted on 10.12.13. The Ops put their appearance and filed W/V on 27.02.14. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms Section 13(3A) of the Act. The cause of delay is also explained in day to day orders.
In the result, the case fails.
Fees are correct.
Hence, it is
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 141/2013 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest 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
