This case arose out of application U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The case of the complainant is that being a borrower he took gold loan from S.B.I, Madanpur Branch vide Gold Loan A/c Nos:38287694680 & 382085533012. Due to financial problem he failed to repay said loan in due time and he received two demand notice from O.P.No:1 on 11.10.2019 of Rs.1,37,783/- & Rs.1,16,881/- & after receipt of notices he visited the bank on several occasions to settle his loan accounts in full and final form but O.P.No:1 neither received any amount nor takes any step for full & final settlement of his loan accounts. He went to submit a written application for closing his gold loan accounts but O.P.No:1 refused to accept said application, so he sent it through Registered post on 09.11.2020, received by O.P.No:1 on 17.11.2020 but O.P.No:1 did not take any step to close those gold loan accounts within the stipulated period. He submits an application before O.P.No:2 on 19.11.2020 praying for full and final settlement of his loan account but no fruitful result comes out.
That he lost all document relating to pledging his gold ornaments and for that he submits a written complaint to Kaliyaganj P.S and also submits a written letter as per RTI Act but O.P.No:3 did neither supply said documents nor replied. Due to negligent & fraudulent act of the O.Ps the complainant has been suffering financial loss and his civil status shows as defaulter which creates problem in smooth running of his business, also suffering from mental pain and agony. He thus prays for order directing O.P.No:1 & 2 to close his gold loan accounts after proper adjustment, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of income, harassment, mental pain & agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
O.P.No:2 did neither appear nor contested the case so case is heard ex-parte against it.
O.P.No:1 contested the case by filing W.V, adopted by O.P.No:3, stating that S.B.I, Madanpur Branch sectioned 48 nos of Gold loan to various borrowers including the complainant on the basis of verification certificate given by the Goldsmith Sri Kamal Roy, S/o:Joydeb Roy of Vill: Kuorpur, P.O: Baghan, P.S: Kaliyaganj, Dist: Uttar Dinajpur keeping the said ornaments in sealed bag. One Ranjan Barman closed his gold loan account on 14.10.2019 and took his gold ornaments from the bank. After receiving and verifying pledged gold ornaments he made a complaint that the ornaments are spurious.
Defence case in further is that after getting such allegation the Bank Authority re verified the gold pledged in all such existing 42 nos of gold loan accounts by another Goldsmith, namely, Dulal Chandra Roy (Prop-Roy Jewelers of Raiganj) and Sri Kamal Basak (Prop-The Jeweler Samrat of Itahar). As per their verification reports they certified that the ornaments relating to 24 numbers of gold loan account, including pledged gold ornaments of the complainant are spurious. When the said forgery was detected the Bank Authority on 02.01.2020 lodged a complaint before the OC, Kaliyaganj P.S and Kaliyaganj P.S Case No:03 of 2020, dated 02.01.2020 U/s 418, 423, 465, 468 of IPC was started. The Police Authority seized all the spurious gold ornaments including the complainant’s ornaments and thereafter handed over the same along with other documents to S.B.I, Madanpur Branch to keep it in the Bank’s safe custody with a direction to produce the same as and when required for investigation of the police case.
Further defence case is that the matter is sub-judice & complainant was fully aware of the facts & circumstances of the matter. During pendency of the criminal investigation the Bank Authority is not in a position to deal with the matter which are involved in said Criminal case. The Bank Authority explained and clarified the matter to the complainant but he in order to unlawful gain lodged this complaint against the O.Ps on false grounds. The Bank Authority shall dispose of the matter after completion of the investigation/case. There was no negligent or fraudulent act on the part of the O.Ps so they pray for dismissal of the case.
Point for consideration
- Whether there was any negligent or fraudulent act or deficiency of service on the part of O.P/Bank and its authority which gives rise cause of action of the case?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief(s) claimed in the petition of complaint?
D e c i s i o n w i t h r e a s o n s
It is admitted that being a borrower the complainant took gold loan from S.B.I, Madanpur Branch vide Gold Loan A/c Nos:38287694680 & 38268533012.
Complainant’s case and evidence is that due to financial problem he failed to repay said loan in due time and he received two demand notices from O.P.No:1 on 11.10.2019 of Rs.1,37,783/- & Rs.1,16,881/-.
From defence case it appears that another borrower also received demand notice at the relevant time and he closed his gold loan account(s) on payment of dues as demanded on 14.10.2019.
Complainant’s further case is that after receipt of notices he visited the bank on several occasions to settle his loan accounts in full & final form but O.P.No:1 neither received any amount nor takes any step, then he went to submit a written application for closing his gold loan accounts but O.P.No:1 refused to accept said application.
O.P.No:1 denied the same. No document is produced to show on which date he intended so, before O.P’s F.I.R dated 02.01.2020. Complainant cleverly did not mention specific date of his visit to the bank, it is thus implied that as on 02.01.2020 the complainant was a defaulter.
Further case of the complainant is that then he sent it through Registered post on 09.11.2020, received by O.P.No:1 on 17.11.2020 but O.P.No:1 did not take any step to close those gold loan accounts within the stipulated period, so he submits an application before O.P.No:2 on 19.11.2020 praying for full and final settlement of his loan accounts but no fruitful result comes out, thus he submits a written complaint to Kaliyaganj P.S and also submits a written letter as per RTI Act but O.P.No:3 did neither replied nor supplied any documents.
Everything done by the complainant was/were after O.P’s F.I.R dated 02.01.2020, which impliedly proves that complainant was well aware of said F.I.R but only to save his skin he went to submit such an application or sent it by post, all are afterthought.
The case & evidence of O.P.No:1 & 3 is that S.B.I, Madanpur Branch sectioned 48 nos of Gold loan to various borrowers including the complainant on the basis of verification certificate given by the Goldsmith Sri Kamal Roy, S/o:Joydeb Roy of Vill: Kuorpur, P.O: Baghan, P.S: Kaliyaganj, Dist: Uttar Dinajpur keeping the said ornaments in sealed bag. One Ranjan Barman closed his gold loan account on 14.10.2019 and took his gold ornaments from the bank. After receiving and verifying pledged gold ornaments he made a complaint that the ornaments are spurious.
Further defence case & evidence is that getting such allegation the Bank Authority re-verified the gold pledged in all such existing 42 nos of gold loan accounts by another Goldsmith, namely, Dulal Chandra Roy (Prop-Roy Jewelers of Raiganj) and Sri Kamal Basak (Prop-The Jeweler Samrat of Itahar). As per their verification reports they certified that the ornaments relating to 24 numbers of gold loan account, including pledged gold ornaments of the complainant are spurious. When the said forgery was detected the Bank Authority on 02.01.2020 lodged a complaint/F.I.R before the OC, Kaliyaganj P.S and Kaliyaganj P.S Case No:03 of 2020, dated 02.01.2020 U/s 418, 423, 465, 468 of IPC was started. The Police Authority seized all the spurious gold ornaments including the complainant’s ornaments and thereafter handed over the same along with other documents to S.B.I, Madanpur Branch to keep it in the Bank’s safe custody with a direction to produce the same as and when required for investigation/trial of the police case.
Defence case & evidence also is that the matter is sub-judice & complainant was fully aware of the facts & circumstances of the matter. During pendency of the criminal investigation the Bank Authority is not in a position to deal with the matter which are involved in said Criminal case. The Bank Authority explained and clarified the matter to the complainant but he in order to unlawful gain lodged this complaint against the O.Ps on false grounds. The Bank Authority shall dispose of the matter after the completion of the investigation/case.
Have a look at Questionnaire and reply of complainant Omedul Rahaman and Anipam Das, Branch Manager of S.B.I, Madanpur Branch who are deposing as P.W.1 & O.P.W.1 respectively. O.P.No:1 & 3 submit 21 questions, of which the complainant gives no answer to Question No:14 to 20 which are denial of complainant’s case. He replied Question No:9 to 11 as not known and replied Question No:12 & 13 as not a fact. Complainant replied Question No:1 to 8 blaming the Bank Authority, no explanation/intimation of Bank Authority to the complainant, remembering duty of the bank official. On the other hand complainant submits questionnaire against examination–in-chief of O.P.W.1, stating not a fact, not informed to the complainant and duty/responsibility of the Bank Authority.
Fact remains S.B.I, Madanpur Branch sanctioned gold loan to the complainant against above two gold loan accounts and also other borrowers in total 48 nos.
Specific question of the bank is that after getting demand notices whether he deposited any amount for re-payment of loan, he replied in aforesaid manner. There was opportunity to deposit any sum in the cash counter under any head, it might be, being not availed, there is enough reason to believe the complainant intentionally defaulted to repay the loan.
Documents show that the Branch Manager, S.B.I, Madanpur Branch submits a letter/F.I.R dated 02.01.2020 to Register an F.I.R against Sri Kamal Roy, S/o-Joydeb Roy, Vill:Kourpur, P.O:Baghan, Uttar Dinajpur, Goldsmith, registered as Kaliyaganj P.S Case No:3/2020, dated 02.01.2020 U/s 418, 423, 465, 468 IPC & Police submits Charge Sheet against said Goldsmith Kamal Roy under those sections vide Charge Sheet No:68/2021, dated 28.02.2021, vide G.R.No:10/2020 and the matter is sub-judice (pending for ER of WA). The gist of the complaint was that the Goldsmith Kamal Roy certified gold ornaments as genuine and the bank sanctioned 48 gold loans thereon, of which ornaments relating to 24 gold loan accounts (including complainant’s loan accounts) found spurious on verification by other Goldsmith and by his false reports Kamal Chandra Roy cheated large amount of money of the bank. Police tried to arrest Kamal Chandra Roy but he is absconding since after occurrence. The Police authority seized all spurious gold ornaments including complainant’s ornaments and handed over the ornaments with other document to S.B.I, Madanpur Branch to keep it in the Bank’s safe custody with a direction to produce the same as and when required.
Defence case in specific is that the Bank authority explained & clarified the matter to the complainant and he being fully aware of the facts & circumstances of the matter/pending case lodged this consumer complaint on false ground to avoid his liabilities & during pendency of the criminal case the Bank authority is not in a position to deal with the matter & the Bank Authority shall dispose of the matter after completion of the criminal case.
Under above facts & circumstances, we are of the opinion that there was no negligent or fraudulent act or deficiency of service on the part of the S.B.I, Madanpur Branch or its authority & the complaint is premature.
In the result the case fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the C.C-57/2020 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P.No-1 & 3 and ex-parte against O.P.No:2 but without any cost.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
