This case is a classic example of abuse of authority by the functionaries of a Bank and the extent of harassment a Customer can be subject to.  The Customer/Complainant was made to run from pillar to post for getting his Kisan Vikas Patras (for short “KVPs”) discharged from their lien, which were deposited with the Bank as security for raising of loan for purchase of a Taxi, which was ultimately not sanctioned.  Having failed before both the Foras below, he has now been dragged upto this Commission.

               Having failed in all his attempts to convince the Bank to delete their endorsement on the KVPs, the Complainant was compelled to knowk at the door of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit I, Kolkata (for short “the District Forum”) (Case No.180 of 2007).  His Complaint was allowed by the District Forum with a direction to the Petitioner Bank to discharge the KVPs, in the face value of Rs.21,500/- and to pay to the Complainant interest @ 9% p.a. on the said amount from the date of maturity of the KVPs till the date of discharge.  The District Forum also

-4-

awarded a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- to the Complainant for harassment and the mental agony which he had undergone for almost eight years.  Litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/- were also awarded.

               State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal vide its order dated 22.01.2013 in SC Case No.FA/41/2012 has affirmed the said order.  Aggrieved, the Bank and its officials have filed this Revision Petition.

               The sole ground, on which the impugned order is sought to be challenged is that having taken away the original KVPs, the Complainant had never approached the Bank for its discharge and therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.

               In our view, the argument is stated to be rejected.  It is inconceivable and illogical that having failed to obtain loan from the Bank, the Complainant would continue to have his KVPs under the lien of the Bank.  Admittedly he had not availed of any facility from the Bank for which he was required to furnish security.  We are in complete agreement with the finding recorded by both the Fora below that it was a case of sheer harassment.  May be some personal ego was at play.  On the facts found

-5-

by the Fora below, we do not find any Jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting our interference therewith.

               We are however, happy to note that in deference to the directions issued by this Commission, the needful has been done and the endorsements in question on the KVPs have since been deleted and the documents discharged.

               Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.  It will be open to the petitioner Bank to recover the amount which the Bank is required to pay in terms of the impugned order, from the delinquent officer(s), if so advised.