Filing Dt. 14.6.2017
Judgment : Dt.23.2.2018
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member
This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by Dr. Pijush Kanti Ghosh alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties (hereinafter OP) namely (1) The Authorised Signatory ICICI Bank, (2) The Manager, ICICI Bank and (3) Soumyajit Patra.
Case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant availed a loan from ICICI Bank Ltd., Bhawanipur Branch against which the OP Bank opened a loan account being No.LPCAL 00004302717.
It is further stated by the Complainant that a major portion of the said loan had been paid by him but due to excessive penal interest which was accrued upon the loan amount the Complainant failed to repay the loan within statutory period of time. The Complainant further stated that thereafter the Complainant and the OP Bank took initiative to settle the matter amicably reached forone time settlement against payment of an amount of Rs.57,948/- on 4.6.2016 . The Complainant issued a cheque dt.16.6.2016 of Rs.57,948/- in favour of the ICICI Bank and the said cheque was received by the OP No.1 & 3 against which OP No.3 issued a payment receipt being No.1606001851 towards acknowledgement of receiving of the settled amount. The Complainant further stated that the OPs were to handover ‘No Due Certificate’ on 17.6.2017 but they did not do the same and on 12.4.2017 the Complainant sent a legal notice but in spite of receiving the said notice the OPs did not take any initiative to issue ‘No Dues Certificate’ in favour of the Complainant. Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the OP to issue ‘No Dues Certificate’ against loan Account No.LPCAL000043027/17, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.
The opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 appeared and contested the case by filing written version stated, inter alia, denying and disputing all the material allegations made out in the petition of complaint stated inter alia, that the Complainant availed a loan of Rs.11,00,000/- which was to be paid through 48 equated monthly installment out of which the Complainant only paid 46 installments. Further, the OP stated that the Complainant took another loan of Rs.1,50,000/- on March, 2017 from OP Bank but the Complainant failed to repay the total loan amount out of which Rs.4,203/- is still due. As per terms enclose with the letter dt. 6.6.16 the OP did no issue ‘No Dues Certificate’ and as such there is no latches on the part of the OP and accordingly prays for dismissal of the case with exemplary cost.
Both parties adduced evidence followed by cross examination in the form of questionnaire and reply thereto.
The Complainant adduced photocopy of letter dt.6.6.2016 issued by ICICI Bank to the Complainant, Manager’s cheque dt.16.6.2016, payment receipt being No.1606001851, Advocate’s letter dt.12.4.2017.
The OP adduced photocopy of loan documents i.e. personal loan agreement, payment schedule, Demand Promissory Note, Debit Mandate Form, Account Statements of the Complainant for LPCAL 00004302717 from 17.8.2005 to 6.7.2017 and for LPCAL 00009852057 from 14.3.2007 to 6.7.2017.
In course of argument Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has stated that there is no outstanding dues in respect of LPCAL 00009852057 and the Complainant has already paid the amount which was fixed ‘one time settlement’. Ld. Advocate on behalf of OP has categorically denied the averment of the Complainant and stated that the documents upon which the OP flied will speak the truth. The OPs relied upon the decision reported in 11(2017)CPJ 569 (NC) [HDFC Bank VS Arti Krishnan].
Main points for determination
- Is there deficiency in providing service on the part of the OP No.1?
- Is Complainant entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
Point Nos.1 & 2 – Both points are taken up together for comprehensive discussion and decision.
Having heard the submission made by the both sides and on perusal of the documents on record particularly one time settlement agreement, it appears that the clauses under the said agreement including the clause No.3 are the pre-condition of issuance of ‘No Dues Certificate’ on the part of the OP Bank. In the instant case THE op Bank herps on the point of non-compliance of the clause No.3 of the one time settlement agreement by the Complainant. The Complainant however, in his evidence on affidavit in reply to the questionnaire and subsequently in brief notes on argument has stated that the outstanding amount in relation to the loan account being No.LPCAL00009852057 has been paid from, his savings account but in no occasion he has filed in supportive document wherefrom it would have been evident that payment of the outstanding amount in respect of the loan Account being No.LPCAL00009852057 has been materialized at all. Therefore, the onus is lies upon the Complainant that he observed as well as complied all the terms as enshrined under clauses under agreement for ‘one time settlement’ has not been discharged.
In such view of the matter we are inclined to hold that the OP Bank has no deficiency in service in respect of non delivery of ‘No Dues Certificate’ in respect of loan Account No.LPCAL00004302717.
Since the Complainant has failed to proof the deficiency on the part of the OPs he is not entitled to get any relief.
Point Nos.1 & 2 are decided accordingly.
In the result, the consumer complaint does not succeed.
Hence,
ordered
that CC/314/2017 is dismissed on contest but without any order as to cost.
