West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/54/2016

Jiten Samanta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tapas Kumar Das - Opp.Party(s)

Subhasish De

25 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                                                                                              

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Sagarika Sarkar, Member. 

and 

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member.

 

Complaint Case No.54/2016

 

             Sri  Jiten Samanta, S/o Madan Mohan Samanta, Village Chhoto Dabcha, P.O.  

             Satbankura, P.S. Garhbeta, District - Paschim Medinipur. ..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1)Tapas Kumar Das, Branch Manager of Bank of India, Dabcha Branch, at Chandrakona Road, P.O. Satbankura, P.S Garhbeta, Dist. Paschim Medinipur,

2)Kamal Bhattacharya,  Branch Manager of Bank of India, Baharasole,  P.O. Baharasole,  P.S Garhbeta, Dist. Paschim Medinipur   ....……….Opp. Parties.

                                                     

              For the Complainant: Mr. Subhasish De, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Santanu Das, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -25/05/2017

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – This is a case u/s 12 of

the C.P. Act, filed by the complainant Jiten Samanta against the O.P.-Tapas Kumar Das, Branch Manager of Bank of India, Dabcha Branch and Kamal Bhattacharya, Branch Manager of Bank of India, Baharasole Branch.

  Facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant is a business

 man and for his business purpose he took loan from the O.P.-Banks and he is  repaying the said loan regularly.  For that reason, he had good relationship with the manager of the

Contd…………………..P/2

 

 

                                                     ( 2 )

O.P.-Banks.  In such situation, the complainant, with a view to construct a house, approached the O.Ps to sanction  him house building loan and after discussion, it was settled that the O.P.-Banks will provide house building loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant. For that purpose the complainant deposited a cheque bearing no.000752 of Rs.4,91,236/- as security deposit and other relevant documents relating to title over the property where the complainant wanted to make construction of  his house.  After passing of few months when the complainant did not get his house building loan, then he on several times  met with O.P. no.1 but he did not give any satisfactory answer. Thereafter when the complainants  wanted to repay the loan amount at Baharasole Branch of the O.P.-Bank, then he came to know that his account has been closed and then O.P. no.2 disclosed that as per direction of O.P. no.1 he has closed the accounts after adjusting amount of the cheque which was handed over to the O.P. no.1 as security money for the purpose of house building loan.  It is stated that the complainant handed over the said cheque bearing no.000752 dated 12/12/2014 of Rs.4,91,236/- to the O.P. no.1 as security of proposed house building loan but the O.P. no.1 without sanctioning house building loan, used the said cheque for some other purpose and as such there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. no.1.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the O.P.-bank to pay Rs.4,91,236/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. and for an award of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and for litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

         Both the opposite parties have contested this case by filling a joint written objection.

          Denying and disputing the case of the complainant it is the specific case O.P.-bank that the complainant took loan of Rs.200,000/- as Cash Credit Loan and  Rs.1,20,000/- as Term Loan from the O.P. no.1, Bank of India Dabcha Branch.  He had also another KCC loan in his name in the said bank.  Suppressing the above fact of running existing loan in his name at Dabcha Branch, the complainant again took loan from O.P. No.2- Bank of India, Baharasole  Branch of  Rs.3,50,000/- as Cash Credit Loan and Rs.2,50,000/- as Term Deposit Loan for his said business.  After getting such information about the aforesaid loan in two separate branches against one business unit, which were outstanding to the tune of Rs.6,74,334/- as on 01/10/2014, the bank authority advised the complainant to close the loan accounts in any one of the Branches of Bank of India and to run his loan account in a single Branch. Complainant accepted the said proposal and he applied in writing on 01/10/2014 in bank’s format to close his loan accounts in Bank of India, Baharasole Branch (O.P. no.2) as well as his KCC loan at Dabcha Branch (O.P. no.1). For that purpose, complainant issued the said cheque dated 12/12/2014 of Rs.4,91,236.82/- payable on Bank of India, Dabcha Branch to close his aforesaid three

Contd…………………..P/3

 

 

 ( 3 )

loan accounts and those were closed on 12/12/2014 as per separate application dated 12/12/2014 of the complainant.  It is stated that on the same day, complainant’s Cash Credit loan amount at Dabcha Branch was enhanced from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.9,90,000/-.  It will also be found from the statement of account of Cash Credit loan a/c  of Dabcha Branch that the aforesaid cheque was issued from the enhanced limit of the said Cash Credit A/c and duly debited from the said account.  O.Ps have denied that the complainant approached before them for sanctioning house building loan and that for that purpose he submitted title deeds and other documents.  There is no scrap of paper to show that the complainant applied for house building loan to the O.P.-Bank. O.Ps therefore claim dismissal of the complaint with cost.

                        To prove his case, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 by tendering a written examination-in-chief, support by affidavit and during his evidence on oath, few documents were marked as exhibit 1, 2 & 3 respectively.  During his cross-examination, other few documents were marked as exhibit A to C/1.  On the other hand, O.P.-Bank has examined O.P. no.1as OPW-1 by tendering a written examination-in-chief and during his evidence, few documents were marked as exhibit D to U/2 respectively.

 

                                                                 Points for decision

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

2)Is the complainant consumer of the O.P.-Bank ?

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

4)Is the complainant 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.

    Admittedly, the complainant is a consumer of the O.P. having his several

loan accounts with the O.P.-Banks.  According to the complainant, being a consumer of the O.P., he had good relationship with the manager’s of the O.P.-Banks and being approached by the complainant, manager of the O.P.-Bank agreed to sanction house building loan of Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of the complainant.  Further according to the complainant for that purpose, he issued a cheque of Rs.4,91,236/- to the O.P. no.1 as security of said house building loan but the O.P.-Bank did sanction the said loan and the said cheque was utilized to close his loan accounts lying with the Baharasole Branch of O.P. no.2.  It is stated that he handed over the said cheque as security money of house building loan and not for closing

Contd…………………..P/4

 

 

                                                 ( 4 )

his loan account with O.P. no.2 and therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-bank.  O.P.-bank has denied such allegations.  According to the O.Ps, complainant had three loan accounts with the O.P. no.1 at Dabcha Branch and suppressing such facts, he also took other loans from O.P. no.2 of the said bank and when it was noticed then the bank authority advised the complainant to close his loan account of any one of the branch of the bank and for that purpose the complainant issued the said disputed cheque.  At the very outset, it appears to us that to prove his case, the complainant produced no scrap of papers to show that he at all applied for house building loan to the O.Ps and for that purpose he issued the disputed cheque.  Since the complainant has made out a case that for the purpose of getting house building loan, he issued the said cheque as security deposit, so the burden lies upon the complainant to prove that he issued the said cheque as security deposit of his house building loan. Complainant  adduced no cogent evidence that he at all applied for house building loan to the O.P.-bank.  We have already stated that the complainant produced no scrap of paper to show and to prove that he at all applied for house building loan before the O.P.-bank.  On the other hand, we find that admittedly the complainant had several loan accounts with the O.P.-bank.  In his cross-examination, PW-1 Jiten Samanta, the complainant himself has admitted that he had talks with both the branches and they asked him to close the account in one branch and to run the account of the other bank by enhancing the loan amount.  Of course, thereafter this PW-1 became alert and he said  that he had no such talk.  From his cross-examination, we further find that he has admitted that the said disputed cheque of Rs.4,91,236.82/- was utilized for closing his three accounts of Baharasole Branch of the O.P.-bank.  In the above facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions  made above, it can be safely held that the said disputed cheque of Rs.4,91,236/- was issued for the purpose of closing the loan account of the complainant in Baharasole Branch (O.P. No.2)  and not for getting house building loan as security money.  We have already stated that the complainant produced no scrap of paper to show and to prove that he at all applied for house building loan and for that purpose he issued the said cheque as security of the proposed loan.

                 It is therefore held that the complainant has failed to prove that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-bank and the complainant is therefore not entitled to get any relief, as prayed for.

                 All the points are accordingly disposed of.

               In the result, the complaint case fails.

Contd…………………..P/5

 

 

                                                                                                    ( 5 )

 

                                    Hence, it is,

                                         Ordered,

                  that the complaint case no.54/2016  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 & corrected by me

                    

         President                       Member                  Member                President

                                                                                                    District Forum

                                                                                                  Paschim Medinipur