Tripura

StateCommission

A/36/2017

Vijaya Bank (Regional Manager) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Sankar Banik - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. D.Sarma, Mr. P.Choudhury

17 Aug 2017

ORDER

 

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.36.2017

 

 

1. Vijaya Bank,

Represented by its Regional Manager,
106, Rajgarh Road,
Rehabari Street, Guwahati, Assam.

 

2. Sr. Branch Manager,
   Vijaya Bank, 
   Durga Chowmuhani Branch,
   Agartala, West Tripura.

 

3. Shri Arun Kumar, 
   Sr. Branch Manager,
   Vijaya Bank,
   Durga Chowmuhani Branch, 
   Agartala, West Tripura.

[All are represented by the present Branch Manager Mr. Yogendra Nath Gupta]

                                                            ….    ….    ….    …. Appellants/Opposite parties.

                   Vs

 

1. Sri Sankar Banik,
   S/o Late Surendra Chandra Banik,
   Santipara, Agartala, West Tripura.
                                                     ….    ….    ….    …. Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

For the Appellants:                               Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Adv.

For the Respondent:                                       Mr. Bidyut Datta, Adv. & Mr. Sanjoy Saha, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:       17.08.2017.

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha,J,

The instant appeal is preferred by the appellants, namely, Vijaya Bank, represented by its Regional Manager, Sr. Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Durga Chowmuhani Branch, Agartala and Shri Arun Kumar, Sr. Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Durga Chowmuhani Branch, Agartala (All are represented by the present Branch Manager Mr. Yogendra Nath Gupta) (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/Bank) under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment dated 30.05.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala  in Case No. C.C. 05 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint case and held that there was deficiency of service by the Branch Manager who failed to sanction the loan after prolong period and the petitioner was harassed. For this harassment, petitioner consumer is entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs.35,000/- and the opposite parties will pay Rs.5,000/- as legal expenses to the petitioner. In total opposite parties Bank is to pay Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner. The amount is to be paid within two months, if not paid, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum.    

2. Today the matter is fixed for order on application filed by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code for adducing additional documentary evidence.
3. Heard Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-opposite parties as well as Mr. Bidyut Datta, and Mr. Sanjoy Saha, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant/petitioner).
4. As agreed to by the parties, the entire appeal has been taken up for final disposal at this stage along with the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code.
5. By way of additional affidavit, appellant-opposite parties submitted colour Xerox copy of the Will No.III-359-2000, DC SBI Code and the agreement between M/s David Consultantancy Pvt. Ltd. and the appellants Vijaya Bank. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent-complainant did not object to the prayer on the ground that the Ld. District Forum has already considered the content of the will from the original Will submitted by the complainant. More so, the Sr. Manager, Durga Chowmuhani Branch of the opposite parties Bank in his evidence has specifically stated that according to their Advocate, Mr. Subhasis De, Sri Sankar Banik, respondent-complainant deposited the original Will deed to him and asked him to return the same after completion of Legal Scrutiny Report (LSR) on 18.11.2016 to which Mr. Subhasis De denied and said that the report will be submitted with original Will deed directly to the Branch Manager not to him.
6. In view of the above, the application for adducing additional evidence is allowed at this appellate stage and also considered the documents annexed with the application.     
7. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner-complainant, Mr. Sankar Banik approached the Sr. Branch Manager of Vijaya Bank, Durga Chowmuhani Branch, Agartala on 03.11.2016 for house loan. The Branch Manager asked the petitioner-complainant to submit all papers like Khatian, Title Deed and plan for checking civil report for sanctioning the bank loan. As asked by the Branch Manager of the opposite parties-Bank, the petitioner-complainant submitted all papers and in consequent thereto the Bank also collected the report and the petitioner paid Rs.1,000/- to open a joint S.B. Account in the Durga Chowmuhani Branch of the said Bank. On 07.11.2016, the agent of Kotak Life Insurance visited the house of the complainant on the advice of Senior Branch Manager of Vijaya Bank. The agent asked him to open a policy for securing bank loan. The purchaser, the petitioner-complainant is to issue a cheque for Rs.63,670/- in favour of Kotak Life Insurance. They again asked to submit papers. Accordingly, all papers were submitted and Rs.2,000/- was paid for Legal Scrutiny Report (LSR). Thereafter, the insurance agent asked for payment of Rs.63,670/- in favour of Kotak Life Insurance and accordingly, the petitioner-complainant issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.63,670/- in favour of Kotak Life Insurance which was handed over to the agent of the said Insurance Company on the same day. Thereafter, on 14.11.2016, the Branch Manager of Durga Chowmuhani Branch of the opposite parties Bank visited the house of the petitioner-complainant and finally asked him to submit the original Khatian, Title Deed (Will) and Valuation Certificate of the property from Paneled Valuer and accordingly, petitioner-complainant after depositing an amount of Rs.5,000/- obtained the Valuation Certificate from the Registered Valuer on 18.11.2016 and as per advice of the Branch Manager submitted all the papers to Sri Ajit Kumar Das, Advocate Clerk of Tripura Bar Association who on behalf of Sri Subhasis De, an empaneled advocate of Vijaya Bank received all the papers in original. Petitioner-complainant also paid an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the empaneled lawyer of the Bank Sri Subhasis De for Legal Scrutiny Report on 21.11.2016. Thereafter, the agent of the Kotak Life Insurance told the petitioner-complainant for the house loan of Rs.8 lacs, he has to pay Rs.63,670/- every year as premium. Petitioner-complainant did not agree with the proposal of the agent of the Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance for which the loan was not sanctioned. Petitioner-complainant therefore, claimed that he was harassed by the activities of the Bank Manager and claimed an amount of Rs.5 lacs as compensation by way of filing an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act before the Ld. District Forum.  

8. Opposite party-Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank appeared and filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that the petitioner, Sankar Banik did not produce the valuation report and was not interested for house loan. One Sujit Debnath, employee of M/s David Consultantancy Pvt. Ltd. has taken the cheque for Rs.63,670/- in the name of insurance. Sujit Debnath was called and the Manager asked him to return the cheque. Thus, there is no deficiency of service of the Bank Manager at all.
9. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Ld. District Forum has framed the following points for deciding the case.

1. Whether the Bank Manager, Vijaya Bank has any role in the matter of insisting the petitioner to purchase life Insurance Policy from Kotak Mahindra?
2. Whether the O.P. has deficiency of service?

10.  To prove the case, the petitioner-complainant has produced paying slip for Deposit Account, Cheque, Valuation Certificate, Photograph, Original Registered Deed (Will), approved Municipal Plan in original, Estimate, I.T. Returns, which were exhibited as Exhibit-1 series. Petitioner-complainant also examined him as P.W.1. 
11. Opposite parties Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, the appellants herein, produced the Loan Application, Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Voter ID, Diligence report, building permission, LSR report, CIBIL report, HOC, copy of e-mail sent to Vijaya Bank. Opposite parties also produced the statement on affidavit of Sri Sanjay Deb Roy, Valuer of the Vijaya Bank and also produced the statement on affidavit of Sri Arun Kumar, Senior Branch Manager of Vijaya Bank, Durga Chowmuhani Branch, Agartala.
12. Considering oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment. Against which, the appellant-opposite parties has preferred the present appeal along with an application for adducing additional evidence. For better appreciation, it would be proper to reproduce the Paragraph-11 & 12 of the impugned judgment which are as follows:-

“11. It also comes out from the evidence of the O.P.W. that the cheque for Rs.63,670/- issued by the complainant returned to the  payee petitioner only on the direction of the branch manager, Arun Kumar. O.P. Branch Manager did not agree in the matter of his direction for purchasing the policy certificate from the Kotak Life Insurance. But his communication with Sujit Debnath, the agent of the Kotak Insurance working in the David Consultancy clearly comes out from the evidence. From the evidence of Sankar Banik it is clear that he had to withdraw the loan application when the agent insisted him to purchase the policy by yearly payment of Rs.63,670/-. It is clear that all formalities was observed by the petitioner. Nationalized bank is not supposed to appoint a Life Insurance corporation agent to verify the documents and submit the verification report.

12. The wife of the petitioner Madhucchanda Banik issued the cheque in the name of Kotak Life Insurance for Rs.63,670/-. The valuation sheet, other documents are produced. Residence verification report is given by David Consultancy Corporate agent of the Kotak. Other information was also collected by the David Consultancy. So communication between the David Consultancy and the Manager, Vijaya Bank clearly comes out from this evidence. Petitioner consumer produced all the documents and he was eligible for getting the loan for Rs.8 lacs. But he had to withdraw it because of pressure on him for payment of Rs.63,700/- every year as insurance premium. O.P. failed to assign any reason for not sanctioning the loan finally and only stated that petitioner had withdrawn application. Deficiency of bank manager is clearly comes out from the evidence when he appointed Insurance Agent for document verification. Matter of conspiracy with the corporate agent of the insurance is to be investigated upon. The consumer court cannot go into that aspects.” 

13. Mr. Sarma, Ld. Counsel appearing for the opposite parties Bank while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment submits that the Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate the evidence on record and also did not consider that the complaint petition was made for non-joinder of necessary parties M/s David Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and Sri Sujit Debnath an employee of the M/s David Consultants Pvt. Ltd. He has also submitted that as the Bank did not agree to sanction loan to the petitioner-complainant, he could not be stated to be a consumer.
14. Mr. Datta, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-complainant submits that as assured by the Bank Authority for granting loan to the petitioner-complainant, he has opened a joint savings bank account in the appellant Bank for Rs.1,000/-. Not only that, also issued a cheque in favour of the Kotak Life Insurance as asked by one Sujit Debnath, an employee of the M/s David Consultants Pvt. Ltd. with whom the appellant Bank entered into an agreement. Any action of the M/s David Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and its employee on behalf of the Bank, Bank cannot shift its responsibility to M/s David Consultants Pvt. Ltd. as the M/s David Consultants Pvt. Ltd. is functioning as an agent of the Bank and for any wrong action of the agent, principal is liable. Thus, on opening of a joint S.B. Account with the appellant Bank and making payment of Rs.63,670/- for life insurance in the name of Kotak Life Insurance in connection with sanctioning of loan by the opposite party Bank, the petitioner-complainant is to be treated as a consumer.
15. We have gone through the additional evidence i.e. the coloured xerox copy of Registered Deed (Will) and also Credit Consultancy Service Agreement and BCSBI codes. The content of the Will was considered by the District Forum and also it appears from the evidence of Sri Arun Kumar, the Sr. Branch Manager, Durga Chowmuhani Branch, Agartala of the Bank who in his statement on oath specifically admitted that the petitioner-complainant had come in his Branch on 03.11.2016 accompanied by their empaneled advocate Mr. Santanu Bhattacharjee to avail housing loan and on the same day, the complainant had submitted a housing loan application and thereafter the Branch generated CIBIL of the petitioner-complainant and his wife after getting the application with necessary documents and handed over the documents to M/s David Consultants Pvt. Ltd. for carrying out necessary due diligence work and in consequent thereto, the due diligence report was submitted by Mr. Sujit Debnath of M/s David Consultants Pvt. Ltd. on 06.11.2016 as per the format provided by the Bank. In his statement on oath, he has also stated that according to their advocate Mr. Subhasis De, Sri Sankar Banik deposited the original Will deed to him and asked to return the same after completion of the LSR report on 18.11.2016 to which Mr. Subhasis De denied and said that the report would be submitted with original Will deed directly to the Branch Manager not to him. He has also stated that he has received the report of empaneled lawyer Mr. Subhasis De dated 18.11.2016 without original Will deed and simultaneously, Sri Sankar Banik came to the Branch for returning his application and other documents.  
16. The O.P.W. Sri Sanjay Deb Roy in his statement on oath specifically stated that he is the empaneled Valuer of the opposite party Bank and as per request of Sr. Branch Manager of the Bank, he has visited the Durga Chowmuhani Branch of the concerned Bank where the Sr. Branch Manager showed him a copy of Will to confirm whether it is coloured Xerox or original. After proper verification, he assured the Bank Manager that it is absolutely coloured Xerox. He has also stated that the petitioner-complainant Sri Sankar Banik came to his chamber at Samajpati Business Centre, Shakuntala Road, Agartala and took the valuation report by giving proper fees.
17. Upon going through the evidence of two O.P.Ws, it is admitted position that the petitioner-complainant applied for house loan and though initially he submitted the coloured Xerox copy of the Will, but subsequently, he submitted the original registered deed (Will) to the empaneled lawyer of the Bank, namely, Sri Subhasis De who handed over the same to the Bank Authority, which was subsequently returned to the petitioner-complainant by the Bank. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any fraud on the part of the petitioner-complainant. It is also established that there was an agreement between the Bank and M/s David Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and Sri Sujit Debnath an employee of M/s David Consultants Pvt. Ltd. submitted his report as per the format provided by the Bank. It is also admitted that the employee of the M/s David Consultants Pvt. Ltd. visited the house of the petitioner-complainant as per the advice of the Branch Manager of opposite parties Bank and asked the petitioner-complainant to open insurance policy for securing bank loan as there was no other alternative to secure the loan. The wife of the petitioner issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.63,670/- in favour of the Kotak Life Insurance which was subsequently returned by the Bank Authority to the petitioner-complainant. Therefore, it is established that the agent of the Kotak Life Insurance acted on instructions of the Bank.
18. We are of the view that a Bank cannot ask an applicant seeking house loan for purchasing insurance policy before sanctioning the loan. In the instant case, admittedly, the Bank provided information to the employee of the M/s David Consultants Pvt. Ltd. to visit the house of the applicant and also for purchasing the insurance policy. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner-complainant is not a consumer.
19. From the impugned judgment of the Ld. District Forum, it appears that the cheque for Rs.63,670/- issued by the petitioner-complainant was returned to the payee-petitioner only on the direction of the Sr. Branch Manager, Sri Arun Kumar though the opposite party Branch Manager did not agree in the matter of his direction for purchasing the policy certificate from the Kotak Life Insurance, but its communication with Sujit Debnath, the agent of Kotak Life Insurance working under M/s David Consultants Pvt. Ltd. clearly comes out from the evidence. Therefore, according to us, the Bank Authority cannot shift their liability to Sri Sujit Debnath, the agent of Kotak Life Insurance working in the M/s David Consultants Pvt. Ltd. particularly when there was an agreement between the appellant Bank and the M/s David Consultants Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. District Forum did not ask the Bank Authority for sanctioning the loan as prayed for by the petitioner-complainant, but only considered the facts that the petitioner was harassed by the action of the appellant Bank asking the petitioner-complainant to pay premium of Rs.63,670/- initially and subsequently stating the same amount as yearly premium. The appellant Bank Authority though did not ask to the petitioner for purchasing insurance policy for getting the house loan, but on the basis of its agreement with M/s David Consultants Pvt. Ltd., the employee of the M/s David Consultants Pvt. Ltd. went to the house of the petitioner-complainant and asked him to purchase a policy for which the wife of the petitioner-complainant has issued a cheque for Rs.63,670/- in favour of the Kotak Life Insurance and the said cheque was subsequently returned on instructions of the Branch Manager of the Bank.

We have also gone through the documents submitted by way of additional affidavit. In the additional affidavit, the appellants Bank submitted that the agreement between the Bank and M/s David Consultants Pvt. Ltd. has no bearing so far the petitioner-complainant is concerned. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Ld. District Forum did not commit any wrong while passing the impugned judgment.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merit.       

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura