Date of Filing: 24-03-2014 Date of Final Order: 14-07-2017
Sri Debangshu Bhattacharjee, Member.
This is an application under Section 12 of CP Act, 1986 filed by Sri Bidhan Chandra Sarkar against The Branch Manager, Central Bank Of India, Sahebganj Branch, Dinhata and Smt. Shanti Roy (OPs) praying for an award of Rs.30.000/- against the opposite party no-1 towards unfair trade practice along with Rs.25.000/-causing mental pain and agony, and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost.
The case of the Complainants, in short, is that the complainant Sri Bidhan Chandra Sarkar has a savings bank account with the Central Bank Of India, Sahebganj Branch, Dinhata being Account Number is 3129150121 and the complainant used to maintain his bank account in regular basis. Smt. Shanti Roy ( O.P-No-2) is a well known person of the complainant and on 30-08-2010 Smt. Santi Roy had taken a loan for a sum of Rs. 100.000/- from the Central Bank Of India, Sahebganj Branch, Dinhata. ( O.P-No-1). The Term laon account number was – 2261477378 ( Old Number-37463). Smt Shanti Roy kept security of her fixed deposit of Rs. 50.000/- against the loan. Smt. Shanti Roy . ( O.P-No-2) is a well known person of the complainant and on her request the complainant signed all the loan papers of Smt Shanti Roy as a Guarantor. The complainant stated that in the middle of 2012 the O.P-1 Bank intimated him that said Smt Shanti Roy had not paid up her loan amount and accordingly bank served notice upon the complainant with a direction to pay off the said amount as he was a Guarantor of the said loan account. The complainant immediately informed the O.P- 1 Bank that Smt Shanti Roy (Loanee/borrower of the loan) was still in service in PWD office and and bank should recover the loan from Smt Shanti Roy. Unfortunately without taking any initiatives to recover the alleged loan amount from Smt Shanti Roy (O.P-2) the Central Bank Of India, Sahebganj Branch, Dinhata. ( O.P-No-1) arbitrarily and illegally withheld a sum of Rs. 1,21,417/- from the savings bank account of the complainant. By this act the O.P-No-1 perpritrated mental torture upon the complainant and according to the complainant, this act is a symbols of unfair trade practice of O.P-No-1. There after the complainant was send a legal notice through his advocate to release the said amount without making any dely. The complainant alleged that there was a unholy alliance between the OPs. During the pendency of the above noted case the O.P-No-1 released the withheld amount of the complainant without any interest. Accordingly, the Complainant has filed the instant case against the OPs for proper relief.
Summons upon the both OPs were duly served but the OP No.2, Smt. Shanti Roy did not turn up to contest the case after appearance. Accordingly, the case was heard ex-parte against OP No.2.
The OP No.1 Central Bank Of India, Sahebganj Branch, Dinhata , in order to contest the case, filed written version. Denying all material allegations contending inter-alia that the instant complaint is not maintainable in its present form and the Complainant has no locus standee to file this case. The OP No.1 admitted the fact that Smt. Santi Roy had taken a loan for a sum of Rs. 100.000/- from the Central Bank Of India, Sahebganj Branch, Dinhata. The reminders to the borrower Smt. Shanti Rani Roy had been sent on several occasion to pay the balance due of loan amount within the stipulated period Ice 10th Feb 2012. A lawyer notice of dated 21/06/2012, a reminder notice on 26/07/2011 (Annexure 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) also send to the complainant. But, the barrower did not turn up for payment. As per terms and condition of the loan agreement which was duly signed by the complainant as a Guarantor, the OP No.1 sent various letters to the complainant and O.P-2 to take initiative for the payment of the loan amount as the liability stands on the complainant if the loan amount is not paid by the borrower Smt Shanti Roy. The O.P-No-1 completely denied that the savings account of the complainant was never withheld. In support of this statement the O.P. No-1 submits document (Annexure -3).
Further case of the O.P. No-1 is that they informed the matter to the complainant that his savings account (No-3129150121) was not in a withheld position for the recovery of loan of Smt. Shanti Roy and any amount was not adjusted for the said recovery of the due lone. O.P. No-1 stated that the entire allegations are baseless and fabricated one and on the basis of the aforesaid facts, the OP prays for dismissal of this case with costs.
In the light of the contention of both the parties, the following points necessarily come up for consideration to reach a just decision.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
3. Has the O.P any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and is he liable in any way?
4. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, peruse the entire documents in the record also heard the argument advanced by the parties at a length.
Point No.1.
The Complainant Sri Bidhan Chandra Sarkar has a savings bank account with the Central Bank Of India, Sahebganj Branch, Dinhata. ( O.P-No-1) The Account Number is 3129150121 and the complainant used to maintain his bank account in regular basis. Therefore, as per definition of Section 2(1) (d) of CPC Act, the Complainant is a consumer. This point is decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.2.
The Complainant and the OPs are the residents of Cooch Behar and the Central Bank Of India, Sahebganj Branch, Dinhata. ( O.P-No-1) is also situated at Cooch Behar. As such, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try this case.
The pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum is of Rs.20,00,000/- but the claim of the Complainant is much less. Accordingly, we hold that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up together for consideration of discussion as well as the points are related with each other.
The Complainant has filed one bank pass book account Number No-3129150121 which reflexes that from 01/07/2013 to 25/08/2014 there was no transaction was made. But within this time on 30/11/2013 and 30/05/2014 Rs.2534/- and Rs. 2472/- was credited as interest in the account of the complainant. There was no evidence is produce by the complainant which reflect that the savings account of the complainant was in withheld position. In para 13 and 14 of the amended copy of plaint the complainant wrongly stated that the OP-No-1 released the amount to the complainants account without any interest. But we find that the complainant was paid interest by the O.P-No-1
A guarantor on any form of loan is equally responsible to ensure the repayment of the loan. A guarantor pledges to repay a loan on behalf of a third party who has taken the loan. Hence the complainant provides a guarantee to the lender, that he will honour the obligation, in case the principal applicant is unable to do so.
In this case, the OP-No-2 does not pay the installments, the bank may ask the complainant to pay. Complainant must remember that he stood gurantor against the loan of O.P-No-1
A guarantor is a person who agrees to repay the borrower’s debt should the borrower default on agreed repayments. The guarantor is often a family member or trusted friend who has a better credit history than the person taking out the loan and the arrangement is, therefore, viewed as less risky by the lender.
The Legal notice of dated 21/06/2012(Annexure-1A), a reminder notice on 26/07/2011 (Annexure -1(c) also send to the complainant. But, the barrower did not turn up for payment. As per terms and condition of the loan agreement which was duly signed by the complainant as a Guarantor, the OP No.1 sent various letters ( Annexure-1(a) 1(b) 1(c)) to the complainant to take initiative for the payment of the loan amount as the liability stands on the complainant if the loan amount is not paid by the borrower Smt Shanti Roy. So, deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant is not prove and the O.P-No-1 is not liable in any way.
The problem between the complainant and the OP-No-1 arises due to the nonpayment of lone amount by the O.P-No-2. The complainant was the guarantor of the loan. But, surprisingly the complainant did not claim any relief from the O.P-2.
The documents as produced by the OP-No-1 (Legal Notice (Annexure-2A,1B),Demand Notice (Annexure-1A),Reminder letter (Anexure-1C),Letter of Guarantee(Annexure-A),Consent letter, Statement of account (Annexure-C), Term Loan Agreement and Loan application) shows that they are willing to resolve the matter with the help of the Complainant, but it is not clear to us as to why the Complainant did not took any step after receiving so many intimation from the OP-No-1. We do not find anything wrong on the part of the OP-No-1. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to get any decree as prayed for. Both the points are decided against the Complainant.
Hence,
ORDERED,
That the present Case No. CC/20/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs. There is no order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
