C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/60
COMPLAINANT : Mr. Chandra Nath Karmakar,
Son of Lt. Shyamapada Karmakar,
of J.N. Biswas Lane, P.O. Krishnagar,
P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) The Bank Manager,
I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd.
Asset Division,
Land Mark Building
228A, A.J.C. Bose Road,
Kolkata
2) The Branch Manager,
I.C.I.C.I. Home Finance Co. Ltd.
Gurusaday Road, 3rd Floor,
Kolkata – 700019
3) The Manager,
Arcil – Arms
(A Division of Asset Reconstruction Co.
(India) Ltd.)
Rare Building, 50, Chowringhee Road,
Kolkata – 700071
4) Branch Manager
I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Kalyani Branch,
P.O. & P.S. Kalyani, Dist. Nadia
5) Smt. Rita Karmakar,
W/0 Sri Chandranath Karmakar,
Janendra Nath Biswas Lane,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 19th March, 2012
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he took a loan of Rs. 1,90,000/- on 22.05.03 and further took a loan of Rs. 60,000/- on 10.01.04, i.e., in total the loan amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-. He paid EMI to the tune of Rs. 64,000/- to the OPs. He further submits that he had no agreement with the OP No. 1, yet the OP No. 3 served a notice dtd. 05.01.11, 06.01.11 & 07.01.11 demanding Rs.5,23,315.19 and also threatened to exercise section 3 of the Securitization and Reconstruction Company Act. The OP Bank served a notice for reconciliation on 10.02.11. The OP No. 3 has no authority to sell, attach or to confiscate the schedule proprieties. He also visited the office of the OP No. 1 & 2 with a request to allow him to pay the due amount in easy instalments, but to no effect. So having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP No. 5, one Rita Karmakar has filed a written version in this case, inter alia, supporting the contention of the complainant as made in the petition of complaint. Notices were duly served upon other OPs. OP No. 1 appeared before this Forum, but no written version is filed by the OPs and they have not come before this Forum to contest this case. So the case is heard exparte.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint along with the oral and documentary evidences laid down by the complainant, it is available on record that admittedly this complainant took a loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the OP No. 1 as house building loan. From the documents, it is also available that at that time one agreement was signed by and between the parties. The complainant has stated that he paid EMI to the tune of Rs. 64,000/- in total, though the loan was sanctioned on 22.05.03 and subsequently, on 10.01.04. Naturally, it is clear that the complainant is a defaulter in payment of EMI. Due to this, the OP bank served a conciliation notice upon him on 10.02.11 asking him to repay the total amount of loan including interest amounting to Rs. 5,26,529/- as on 31.12.10. But there is no document filed on the side of the complainant that as per that notice he met the OP No. 1 to settle the matter with him. Rather he sent a lawyer’s notice to provide him further time and also to supply him all copies of agreement. Thereafter, he again sent a notice on 18.04.11 with a request to settle the amount after calculating the actual dues and also requesting him not to direct the OP No. 3 as appointed by the OP No. 1 to sell his mortgaged property. The OP No. 3 being appointed by the OP No. 1 & 2 served a registered notice to this complainant on 05.01.11 directing him to meet him at his office to find out agreeable solution for early resolution of the loan outstanding amounting to Rs. 5,23,315.19. But no document is filed by the complainant to show that on receipt of that notice, he met the OP No. 3 to settle the matter with him. Rather he sent a lawyer’s notice on 28.06.11 to the OP No. 1 with a request to send him up-to-date statement of the accounts, so that he could take step to meet his demand at the earliest with easy instalments. No where in the complaint it is stated that he met the OP No. 2 or 3 at any point of time to settle the claim of the OP No. 1, though from his averment it is clear that huge amount of the loan was outstanding including interest as the complainant failed to repay the loan amount as per EMI to the OP No. 1 and 2.
Therefore, considering the facts of this case it is clear to us that this complainant is admittedly a defaulter in repayment of the EMI amount as per the agreement signed between the complainant and the OP No. 1, but he has moved this Forum to allow him to repay the loan amount by easy instalments. There is no document filed by him to show that the OP Bank declined to allow him to repay the loan by easy instalments. Rather he did not take any positive step either to repay the loan amount or to settle the claim amount of the OP in spite of receipt of notices from the OP No. 1, 2 & 3 respectively.
It is decided in a case referred from (2002) 1 CRP page 223, Andhra Pradesh that, “No one acquires a right of action from his own wrong. Nobody can be rewarded for his own faults. None acquires a right of action for his own wrong. Therefore, the complainant in the circumstances of this case cannot claim any compensation/relief and in view of his default in payment of instalments regularly. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.”
On a careful perusal of the above cited ruling, we hold that it is applicable in the present case also as in this case the complainant himself is a defaulter in payment of loan amount as per EMI. Even no document is filed to establish that he tried to settle the dispute with the OPs on receipt of notices from them. Practically, no positive action was taken on his part to settle the claim of the OPs nor to repay the outstanding loan amount by him.
In view of the above discussions, our considered view is that we don’t find any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in this case. Rather we hold that the complainant himself is a wrong doer who did not repay his outstanding loan to the OPs in time. So he is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/11/60 be and the same is dismissed exparte against the OPs without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
