West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/111/2015

Sri Subrata Khanra - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Asim Kumar Dutta

22 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Mrs. Sagarika Sarkar, Member

and 

Mr. Pulak Kumar Singha, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.111/2015

 

1)Sri Subrata Khanra, S/o Ajit Kumar Khanra,

2)Smt. Arati Rani Khanra, W/o Sri Subrata Khanra, Vill. Faridpur, P.O. Chaipat, P.O. Khetpur, P.S. Daspur, District-Paschim  Medinipur., PIN-721148.

         ……………Complainants.

                                                                              Vs.

1)State Bank of India, Gopiganj Branch, Vill. Uttarbarh, P.O. Keshpur, P.S. Daspur,  Dist. Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721148,

2)State Bank of India, Noticed to be served Regional Manager, Medinipur region, Medinipur, P.O. Medinipur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721101,

3)SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Having its regd. Office at Natraj M.V. Road & Western Express, having junction, Andhiri E)  Mumbai 400069…......……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Asim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Badal Kr. Raj., Advocate.

                                                  : Mr. Samir Kr. Ghosh., Advocate.

 

 

Decided on: -22/05/2017

                                

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – This is the case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, filed by the complainants Sri Subrata Khanra & Smt Arati Rani Khanra against the O.P.-State Bank of India and two others.

Contd……………P/2

 

 

                                                                     ( 2 )

 

                           Facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainants approached the O.P. no.1-State Bank of India, Gopigang Branch for getting housing loan which was sanctioned on 14/01/2014.  From the sanction letter, it will be evident that the terms loan of              Rs.9,36,000/- was sanctioned which included H.B.L. of Rs.8,94,000/- and S.B.I. Life Premium  of Rs.41,190/-.  Thereafter the complainants wanted  to liquidate the  loan and the bank issued closing balance statement dated 6/7/2015 for a sum of Rs.8,97,286/- and the complainants accordingly deposited the said amount in their loan account.  Subsequently after verification of the concerned loan account it was found by the complainants that though a sum of Rs.8,97,300/- was deposited in their loan account no.33657702769 but a sum of Rs. 8,91,937/- was shown to have been deposited in such account most illegally and fraudulently.  On enquiry it was found that the bank has shown adjustment in various amounts towards  insurance premium in some alleged separate account which is absolutely illegal and mala fide one.  It is stated that as per sanction  order, the entire loan amount and insurance premium was for a sum of Rs.9,36,000/- and the complainants duly repaid such amount and thereafter realization of  further amount from the complainant towards insurance premium is illegal and mala fide in nature.  Total insurance premium was settled at Rs.41,196/- for a term of 5 years and amount payable per year was fixed at Rs.8,238/-.  Since the loan amount was liquidated within 2 years so two installments of  Rs.8,238/- each is to be adjusted.  It is stated that the O.P. falsely adjusted various amounts and the bank has released entire insurance premium from the loan amount itself at the first instance and thereafter they have again realised certain amounts towards insurance premium and the bank has thus played fraud upon the complainants.  Complainant therefore served legal notice upon the O.P. nos.1&2 demanding refund of excess amount but the bank has shifted the liability on the Insurance Company i.e. O.P. no.3 with a plea that the matter of refund is under their process.  Hence this case, praying for directing the O.Ps to refund the entire excess amount realized from the complainants time to time and for a direction to provide accurate statement of account and an order of compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost.

                      O.Ps. have contested this case by filling two separate written statements.

                       Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party nos.1&2 that the O.P.-Bank has supplied full and true statement of accounts to the complainant and the said loan account has been closed and the O.P.-Bank has issued no dues certificate to the complainants.  The complainants never raised any

Contd……………P/3

 

 

                                                                     ( 3 )

question regarding statement of account. Regarding the complainant’s claim for refund of insurance amount, it is stated that the O.P. no.1 has sent the said application to the                   O.P.-Insurance Company for taking necessary action but in that application, the complainants raised no dispute regarding the statement of accounts.  The O.P. nos.1 & 2 therefore claim dismissal of the complaint with cost.

                     O.P. no.3 has contested this case by filing a separate w/o.

                     Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the O.P.-Insurance Company that the insurance coverage was surrendered on basis of the request of the complainants and the surrender fees was paid as per terms and conditions  of the master policy and so there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P no.3, as alleged by the complainants.  O.P. no.3 has discharged  their obligation by paying the amount of Rs.6,681/- and Rs.99/- calculated as per terms and conditions of the policy to the policy holder.  It is also stated by the O.P. no.3 that they received premium of Rs.8,238/- towards insurance coverage for the first year and thereafter an amount of Rs.8,238/- was received by them for the second year vide account transfer on 20/2/2015.   Thereafter the O.P. no.3 have received a request dated 10/4/2015 from the O.P.-Bank for surrender of the said insurance coverage and surrender amount of  Rs.6,781/- was duly paid vide transfer account dated 8/9/2015 and an amount of Rs.99/- was paid on 27/1/2015.Therefore the amount paid on surrender is as per the terms and conditions of the master policy and hence there is no cause of action for raising the complaint against this O.P.  O.P. no.3 therefore claims dismissal of the complaint with cost.

                                                                 Point for decision

1)Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?

2)Are the complainants consumer under the provision of C.P. Act?

3)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

4)Are the complainants entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?   

Decision with reasons

                 For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

                 At the very outset, it is to be stated here that in this case, neither the complainants  nor the O.Ps. have adduced any sort of evidence, either oral or documentary.  However, they have filed some documents in support of their respective cases.

                 Regarding maintainability of this case, we find from the respective cases of the parties that admittedly the said loan account of the complainants, lying with the O.P.-Bank, has

Contd……………P/4

 

 

                                                                     ( 4 )

 been closed after the complainants liquidated the loan amount on 10/7/2015.  In their w/o,     O.P. no.1&2 have clearly stated that after such liquidation of loan, they issued a ‘no dues certificate’ to the complainants.  It is also the case of the complainants that in the month of July, 2015  they have paid up the entire loan amount and loan account has been closed. The present petition of complaint has been filed thereafter on 28/9/2015 i.e. after two months from the date of closing of the loan account in question.  Since admittedly the  said loan account has been closed, so the present complainants cannot be said to be the consumer of the O.P. after closer of that loan account.  That apart, we find that in their written complaint at page 3 & 4, the complainants have alleged that the O.P.-Bank have practiced fraud upon the complainants by deducting some amount most illegally and fraudulently. Since there is allegation of fraud against the O.P. as raised by the complainant, so this forum is not competent to decide such issue regarding  alleged fraud. In that view also the present petition of complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. 

                  It is therefore held that the present complaints are not consumer of the O.P. and this forum is not competent to try this present case as there is allegation of fraud against the O.P.  The petition of complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

                       

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                          that the complaint case no.111/2015 is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

      Dictated and Corrected by me

     

               President                         Member                    Member                      President

                                                                                                                     District Forum

                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur