Order-25.
Date-30/10/2015.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant opened a Term/Fixed Deposit Account on 08-01-2011 being STDR A/c. No.31576806446 for Rs.1 lakh for a term of 1000 days with the OP.
OP all on a sudden by its letter no.BM/41/149 dated 15-11-2013 informed the complainant that the fixed deposit account of the complainant was prematurely encashed on 21-10-2013 amounting to Rs.1,29,774/-. It has also been stated that a sum of Rs.1,17,041/- has been transferred to the complainant’s demand loan account No.30029715221 availed by the complainant against deposit of six numbers of Kisan Vikas Patra (KVP) for clearing the outstanding dues of that loan account and the balance of the said premature proceeds amounting to Rs.12,733/- said to have been transferred to the SB A/c. No.10434185336 of the complainant.
The demand loan account no.30029715221 was availed by the complainant on or about 2nd January, 2006 for a sum of Rs.45,000/- against deposit by way of collateral security of Rs.60,000/- by furnishing the original six numbers of KVPs stands jointly in the names of the complainant and one Smt. Nirmalya Halder of Rs.10,000/- each.
Complainant duly repaid the said loan amount to the OP within time. Immediately thereafter, complainant requested the OP to return the said six numbers of KVPs deposited with the OP by way of collateral security for availing the said demand loan. On such demand to return the said original KVPs the Branch Manager of the OP failed to hand over the said original KVPs to the complainant and have requested the complainant many times without number that the said original KVPs will be returned shortly.
Sometime on 12-10-2007 the Bank issued a letter to the Post Master, Ultadanga Main Road Post Office, Kolkata – 700 067 with the request to issue duplicate KVPs in favour of Nirmalya Halder and Arup Kumar Basu, enclosing therewith a copy of FIR dated 06-10-2007, Bond of Indemnity and copy of Bank Guarantee since the said original KVPs were lost from the custody of the OP/bank. The OP forwarded copy of the said letter dated 12-10-2007 addressed to the Ultadanga Main Road Post Office to the applicant.
On or about December, 2008 the OP Bank handed over all those duplicate unpledged KVPs to the applicant and the applicant duly encashed all the said unpledged KVPs.
On or about 09-02-2012 the OP Bank for the first time asked the applicant to liquidate the purported loan amount of Rs.45,000/-. However, the said loan amount was duly liquidated by the applicant as long back in 2006. Production of Books of Accounts, collateral security registers and correspondence made in between bank and complainant and bank with post office, in its usual course of business in respect of all the accounts maintained by the Bank inclusive of the said loan and/or demand loan account will prove that fact.
Complainant replied against the letter of bank dated 14-02-2012 vide a letter and categorically denied and disputed any liability of the applicant as alleged and OP Bank by its letter dated 21-12-2012 once again reverted the matter to the applicant with a request to produce proof of payment by complainant against the said demand loan amount. Against that complainant by its letter dated 09-01-2013 duly replied to the said letter dated 21-12-2012 of Bank and informed that the said loan was duly liquidated in the same year. However, the OP could not return the original KVPs to the complainant as the said KVPs could not be traced out by bank, which were in their custody.
Complainant and his widow sister Smt. Nirmalya Halder, on 08-01-2011 jointly opened TDR/STDR there being No.31576806446 for Rs.1 lakh for the period of 1000 days and the same became due to mature on 04-10-2013. Accordingly on 03-10-2013 the applicant deposited the original receipt of said TDR/STDR to OP Bank when the complainant asked to come on 05-10-2013 as the 04-10-2013 was a holiday when complainant attended in the branch of OP but its branch manager informed that the sum of Rs.1 lakh shall hold by Bank as per advice of their higher authority and as such payment of said Rs.1 lakh cannot be made as the bank without any consent of the account holder have renewed the said TDR/STDR for a further period of 1000 days and same would matured on 30-06-2016 valued at Rs.1,66,162/-. The complainant duly responded the same by letter dated 05-10-2013. In respect of the receipt of the letter dated 05-10-2013 OP did not reply and also failed and neglected to acknowledge the receipt of the same. Thereafter, complainant lodged a complaint before Banking Ombudsman to get redressal for bank inaction and Banking Ombudsman by its communication dated 06-02-2014 expressed their inability to proceed with the matter as the complaint was not in accordance with Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the complainant through his advocate asked the OP to reimburse the entire proceeds of STDR A/c. 31576806446 for Rs.1 lakh and to treat the said account as a live account of the applicant and/or to transmit the proceeds of the said STDR account with as on date to the Savings Bank Account of the complainant. But OP did not comply the same and failed and neglected to comply for which the complainant has filed this complaint praying for releasing Rs.1 lakh with agreed interest accrued thereon till the date of payment against the OP in favour of the complainant for fraudulent misappropriation and/or illegal enforcement of STDR A/c. 31576806446 of Rs.1 lakh and compensation etc.
On the other hand, OP Bank by filing written statement submitted that the entire complaint is false and frivolous and with mala fide intention this complaint is filed.
It is specifically mentioned that complainant Arup Kumar Basu together with Nirmalya Halder had availed one Demand Loan from the OP Bank for the sum of Rs.45,000/- only by executing banking documents on 02-01-2006, which was repayable by the complainant at the rate of interest of 9.25 percent p.a. and the loan account number of the borrowers was 30029715221 and at the time of availing of the said Demand loan the complainant executed one arrangement letter, security delivery letter as well as a letter of advance against authorized security Spl/T.D.R./N.S.C./KVP/Recurring Deposits, all dated 02-01-2006 and in order to secure the repayment of demand loan with the OP bank 6 number of KVPs being Nos.14CD 958952 to 14CD 968957 each of value of Rs.10,000/- but since the original KVP certificates were lost by the OP Bank, the Branch Manager of the OP Bank lodged one complaint with the Officer-in-Charge vide office Memo No.BM/35/101 dated 06-10-2007 and in order to enable the OP Bank to obtain duplicate KVPs from the Post Office.
Subsequently, since the complainant did not repay the loan amount with interest to the OP Bank, the OP Bank requested the Post Office for premature payment of the duplicate KVPs instead of the original, but the Ultadnga Post Office issued the cheque for Rs.81,354/- vide cheque no.464918 dated 10-12-2008 in the name of the complainant, Sri Arup Kumar Basu instead of in favour of State Bank of India, Ultadanga Branch, and on receiving the said cheque in his name, complainant deposited the same in his own Savings Bank Account instead of his loan account. That OP repeatedly requested the complainant to repay the loan amount with interest to the OP Bank but the contention of the complainant was that he had deposited his loan amount with interest in his loan account, although the same was not true, as would reflect from, the statement of account of the loan account of the borrower/complainant.
When even after repeated requests, the borrower/complainant failed to repay the demand loan amount with interest thereon to the OP Bank, the OP Bank was compelled to serve upon the borrower one demand notice dated 09-02-2012 upon the complainant, inter alia, stating the fact of non-repayment of the loan amount with interest to the OP Bank and also asking the complainant to repay the same to the OP Bank or if he has allegedly deposited the same, to produce proof of deposit of the account.
On receipt of the said notice dated 09-02-2012 vide its letter dated 14-02-2012 inter alia stated that he had repaid the loan amount to the OP Bank and admitting that in the year 2008 he had encashed all the KVPs.
However, since the loan amount was not paid to the loan account of the borrower/complainant, the OP Bank once again served upon the complainant a letter dated 21-12-2012 with the same contents.
Since the borrower/complainant after repeated requests defaulted in payment of his loan account with accrued interest of the OP Bank on the basis of Bank, the OP Bank, so on the basis of the unfettered power given by the complainant towards the general lien to any of the deposits standing in the name of the borrower/complainant in the OP Bank or its any other offices vide annexure W/3 annexed herewith the OP Bank closed the demand loan account no.30029715221 on 21-10-2013 by way of adjusting the proceeds from one STDR account No. 31576806446 i.e. sum of Rs.1,17,041/- which was deposited in the demand loan account towards principal with accrued interest thereon for its closure and the remaining sum of Rs.12,733/- was deposited in the Savings Bank account of the borrower/complainant being no.10434185336 and the said fact of closure of the loan account by way of adjusting the proceeds from one STDR account No. 31576806446 was duly intimated to the borrower/complainant by the OP Bank vide office memo no.BM/41/149 dated 15-11-2013.
It is further submitted that KVPs were never unpledged to the OP Bank nor did Bank handed over the duplicate certificates to the complainant/borrower but it is to be noted that taking advantage of the fact that the original certificates were misplaced by the OP Bank, the complainant practiced fraud upon the OP Bank encashed the securities of the Bank i.e. the 6 KVPs without repaying the loan amount or without intimating the bank about the fact of such encashment from Post Office.
Further it is a fact that for non-payment of the accrued loan amount with interest as per banking Rules and Regulations in adjusting the outstanding alleged STDR in question as per the rule of law was adjusted. In the above circumstances, entire complaint is false and fabricated and vexations and only for getting some illegal benefit this complaint is filed and for which this complaint shall be dismissed with cost.
Decision with Reasons
After proper consideration of the complaint and the written version and also relying upon the documents as filed by the parties and further considering the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties we have gathered that it is undisputed fact that Arup Kumar Basu together with Nirmalya Halder availed of one demand loan for Rs.45,000/- by executing banking documents on 02-01-2006, which was repayable by the complainant at the rate of interest of 9.25 percent p.a. and the loan account number of the borrowers was 30029715221. It is also undisputed fact that at the time of availing of the said demand loan, the complainant executed one arrangement letter, security delivery letter as well as a letter of advance against authorized security Spl/TDR/NSC/KVP/Recurring Deposits dated 02-01-2006 and in order to secure the repayment of the Demand Loan the Borrowers deposited with the OP Bank 6 number of KVPs being Nos.14CD 958952 to 14CD 958957 and each of KVP value was Rs.10,000/-.
It is undisputed fact that from the custody of the bank original KVPs were lost so the Branch Manager of the OP Bank lodged one complaint with the Officer-in-Charge vide Memo No.BM/35/101 dated 06-10-2007 in order to enable the OP Bank to obtain duplicate KVPs from the Post Office and it is also found that Bank authorities requested the Post Office for prematurity payment of the duplicate KVPs instead of the original, but the Postal Authority after receipt of the same issued those duplicate KVPs but that was handed over to the complainant when complainant encashed said amount back behind the knowledge of Bank.
But it is proved beyond any manner of doubt that banking authority that is State Bank of India, Ultadanga Branch requested the Ultadanga Post Office to issue duplicate KVPs as original was lost and also asked for payment of the said amount prematurely but Ultadanga Post Office issued cheque No.464918 amounting to Rs.81,354/- dated 10-12-2008 in the name of Arup Kumar Basu instead of State Bank of Ultadanga Branch and complainant encashed the said amount after receiving the cheque instead of depositing the sum against his loan account. So, considering that fact it is clear that that encashment in respect of KVPs was made by the complainant long back in the year 2008 in the month of December. But actually prayer was made by the Bank for reissuing the duplicate KVPs and for prematurity payment of KVPs in the name of State Bank of India, Ultadanga Branch and admitted position is that the complainant encashed the said amount because the postal authority issued the duplicate KVPs in the name of Arup Kumar Basu and Nirmalya Halder. From the documents of the OP which were produced by the postal authority it is clear the original KVPs were pledged to the OP Bank against the loan account and only the bank authority after the loss of original KVPs prayed for issuance of duplicate KVPs but it was not made by the complainant or Nirmalya Halder and considering that fact it is clear that getting chance of issuing duplicate KVPs of the Post Office in favour of Arup Kumar Basu and Nirmalya Halder, complainant without depositing the cheque prematurely encashed the amount but the said KVPs were not unpledged by the Bank till date because complainant back behind the knowledge of OP Bank managed to encash those KVPs with connivance with Post Office.
At the same time from the statement of loan account it is clear that loan was granted on 01-01-2006 and finally transferred to the loan account of the complainant being account no.30029715221 and thereafter, complainant never paid any single money till 21-10-2013. So, ultimately the figure of the said loan account became Rs.1,17,041/-. Fact remains that complainant has failed to produce any document to show that any point of time against loan account he paid any amount. At the same time complainant has failed to produce any document that his loan account was closed finally after full satisfaction. Further complainant has failed to produce any document that the KVPs were unpledged. On the contrary it is found that complainant somehow or otherwise managed to receive the prematurely cheque amount from the Post Office which was issued in the name of the complainant and Nirmalya Halder by the post office. But it is specific letter of the bank to the post office that duplicate copies of KVPs shall be issued and it shall be prematurely encashed and encashed amount should be sent to the bank but post office issued cheque in the name of the complainant and complainant received the cheque from the Post office and it is proved from the document that complainant received the cheque but it was the duty of the complainant to deposit the said amount to the loan account but it was not done but by adopting unfair means he encashed the entire amount and thereafter, did not pay the single amount against the loan account. Now, after lapse of 6 years from the date of encashment of the said KVPs complainant has appeared and by filing this complaint raised different type of allegations against the OP Bank but we have gathered that this complainant is a dishonest consumer no doubt when he has not paid any single amount against his loan account what is proved. At the same time it is proved that the KVPs were not unpledged by the Bank. Complainant never prayed to the Post Office for issuance of any duplicate KVPs or issuance of cheque. Everything was done by the bank authority to the post office but postal authority somehow issued the duplicate KVPs prematurely issued the entire amount and cheque in the name of the complainant and Nirmalya Halder and that was supplied to the complainant without any information to the bank and complainant somehow withdrew the said money from the KVPs and was sitting idle for 6 years since December, 2008 but it is evident from the letter of the OP Bank that OP Bank on 12-10-2007 sent a letter to the Post Master of Ultadanga Post Office Main Road for issuance of duplicate KVPs favouring Arup Kumar Basu and Nirmalya Halder and pledging in favour of State Bank of Ultadanga but when Bank did not receive the same bank wrote a letter to the complainant Arup Kumar Basu on 09-02-2012 stating the fact that complainant has received the cheque of Rs.81,354/- being Cheque No.464918 dated 10-12-2008 and which was encashed by him but that was not deposite against the loan account so the complainant was asked to liquidate the same amount within 7 days but complainant did not turn up because he already realized the said KVPS amount. Subsequently, again bank on 21-12-2012 sent a notice but that had not been answered but his answer is that he has cleared the amount of loan account but bank asked to produce the document about payment but complainant never produced any paper to show that he has paid the amount.
No doubt the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted a peculiar argument to the effect that when KVPs were encashed by the complainant then invariably it can be presumed that loan account was satisfied for which the KVPs were released from pledged but such an argument is found illogical having no legal foundation on the ground that KVPs were admittedly pledged to the bank by the complainant. Same were misplaced or lost from the custody of the OP Bank. OP Bank applied for issuance of duplicate KVPs and issuance of cheque after prematurely encashment but anyhow those duplicate KVPs were issued in the name of Nirmalya Halder and Arup Kumar Basu and prematurely it was encashed and cheque was issued in the name of the complainant and Nirmalya Halder and that was encashed. Then it is proved that when KVPs were under pledge and when Bank prayed for issuance of duplicate KVP, somehow or otherwise complainant managed to receive the cheque from post office and post office did not inform the bank why they handed over the cheque to the complainant and Nirmalya Halder in place of sending the same to the bank when Bank prayed for issuance of duplicate KVPs and prematurely encasment. So, it is clear that connivance with Post Office authority complainant managed to withdraw the amount though the KVPs were under the pledge and it was not unpledged by the OP Bank till date.
Further not a single document is produced or shown by the Ld. Lawyer for the OP to show that at any point of time it was unpledged or the complainant prayed for receiving the said KVPs from the bank as he has paid the said amount. So, considering all the above facts and circumstances, we have gathered that dishonest complainant appeared before this Forum by submitting false statement against the OP Bank and about payment against loan account but truth is that not a single paise was paid after taking the said loan by the complainant. So, years together the interest were added and ultimately the figure of the said loan amount was Rs.1,17,041/- as on 21-10-2013 and from 02-01-2006 to 21-10-2013 not any single paise was repaid by the complainant against that loan account No.30029715221. But Ld. Lawyer for the complainant tried to convince having no materials in their hand to that effect that release of KVPs justifies that loan was paid but such an argument cannot be taken into account as a truthful version of the complainant on the ground KVPs were somehow or otherwise encashed by the complainant with the connivance with the Post Office when it was processed as per prayer of the State Bank of Ultadanga and State Bank never released the same to the complainant, never directed the post office to handover the cheque or the duplicate KVPs to the complainant. It simply proves that the complainant is a dishonest and cheat person and he managed to collect the cheque of the KVPs and duplicate KVPs dishonestly but it was his duty to deposit the said cheque which was encashed by the complainant after receiving the same from the post office to the Bank but that has not been done but bank informed the matter forthwith to the complainant but complainant was silent since 2008 because he is a dishonest person and as customer he is a well known cheat which is proved in this case and as a cheat customer tried to grab money more with scrupulous brain. But anyhow bank has produced all the documents which support entire claim of the complainant is false, fabricated, vexatious and only to grab huge money from the bank even after taking loan but without paying a single amount and at the same time consumer must be declared as cheat consumer and such a consumer must be penalized for such unscrupulous act.
On proper consideration of the materials on record and further finding the entire loan account from 02-01-2006 to 21-10-2013 we find that complainant never paid any single paise against loan account. So, the figure becomes Rs.1,17,041/- and as per agreement bank has its authority to realize said amount from any account which was deposited in the said bank and accordingly OP Bank rightly and as per law justifiedly adjusted said unpaid loan amount of Rs.1,17,041/- from the STDR Account No. 31576806446 and balance amount of Rs.12,733/- was credited to the SB Account of the complainant being account No.10434185336 and that act on the part of the Bank was completely justified and no doubt the public money cannot be anyway misused by the customer because complainant as a customer(consumer) took loan and loan amount is the public money but he did not pay any single paise as repayment of loan so, bank as per rules and regulation rightly did such thing and adjusted that loan account and closed the loan account after adjustment of Rs.1,17,041/- on 21-10-2013 and loan account was finally closed showing balance NIL. So, in this regard it is clear that bank has not misused any part of the account of the complainant and the adjustment made from the STDR No. 31576806446 is legal and justified.
But surprising factor is that the cheat consumer appeared before this Forum along with unscrupulous brain for grabbing money, from Bank though in the meantime he managed to encash the KVPs from the Post Office bypassing the bank that is evident and no doubt Post Office did not act properly though letter was sent from the Bank, so, everything should be refunded to the bank but that has not been done by the Post Office. It is no doubt an unjust, illegal, unfair practice on the part of the Post Office. Might be there was an unholy collaboration in between the complainant and the Post Office for encashment of the KVPs and for that reason we cannot hold that KVPs were released by the Bank but all the documents prove that pledged of the KVPs were not released by the Bank by mal practicing the complainant managed to receive it but the complainant has tried to prove that he paid entire amount but practically in the complaint bluff has been given by the complainant because the complainant is a cheat consumer and no doubt he has tried to cheat the bank but anyhow all the tactics of the cheat consumer in the complaint is proved beyond any manner of doubt. Truth is that complainant appeared before this Forum to grab money by giving bluff to the Forum but anyhow the complainant was not aware of the fact that the Fora are not blind. Anyhow in this case fraudulent act of the complainant is caught in the hands of the Fora and fact remains complainant did not think for a moment that all such documents shall be collected from different establishment for determination of consumer disputes and ultimately relying upon the argument and documents we are confirmed that a cheat consumer has been caught red handed by this Forum though he is surrounded by the unscrupulous and fraudsters for the purpose of grabbing money and it is also proved that entire complaint is false, vexatious and full of bluffs, so such a fraud-master complainant cannot be released only by dismissing the case but he should be punished at first because he is a fraudster consumer and as consumer he is a renowned cheat and fraudster not only he tried to cheat the bank but also tried fraudulently to get a decree by preparing a concocted fraudulent story but consumer character must be very fair in getting relief.
In the light of the above observations and findings this complaint fails with penal cost.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest with a penal cost of Rs.10,000/- against the OPs.
Complainant is to deposit the penal cost within one month from the date of this order to this Forum failing which 9 percent interest shall be assessed over the same till full realization and if the order is not complied with within one month in that case penal proceeding shall be started against him and for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed.
