DATE OF FILING : 26.09.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 23.12.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 22.06.2014.
Sri Sukumar Hazra,
son of Prafulla Hazra,
Village & P.O. Kaijari, P.S. Uluberia,
District Howrah,
PIN 711316. ………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
The Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Kulgachia Branch,
Village Kulgachia ( N ), P.S. Uluberia,
District Howrah,
PIN 711303……….. …………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak, L.l.b., ( Retired Railway Officer ).
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Sukumar Hazra, praying for compensation for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the o.p., Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Kulgachia Branch, Howrah, and to return the LIC policy being no. 433011936 lying in the name of the petitioner and also praying for simple interest on the above amount till realization.
- The case of the petitioner is that he is a business man and applied for a loan before the o.p. amounting to Rs. 30,000/- for his electric business and the loan amount was sanctioned on 30.7.2009 by the o.p. bank being loan A/c no. 2128903811 and deposited his LIC Policy as security.
- On 27.09.2012 the petitioner deposited the entire due amount before the o.p. and on 26.10.2012 the o.p. issued no due certificate to the petitioner but did not return the LIC Policy Bond. The petitioner on several occasions visited the o.p. for returning the policy bond but the o.p. refused to return the same and on 28.6.2013 the petitioner sent a letter to the o.p. and later lodged a complaint before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Howrah, but his efforts are in vain and then he filed this case against this mal practice of the o.p. alleging such acts on the part of the o.p. amounting to deficiency in service with the prayers.
- That the o.p. Bank contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made in the claim petition and admitted that the petitioner obtained such a loan in the year 2009 for which the petitioner deposited the LIC Policy amounting to Rs. 20,000/- as security and also the petitioner paid the total dues of the bank on 26.10.2012 and the loan account was closed. The bank could not return the LIC Bond as the same was untraced and so on 17.10.2014 the o.p. wrote a letter to the petitioner to receive the duplicate LIC Bond from the o.p. Instead of receiving the duplicate LIC Bond the petitioner filed this case illegally which should be dismissed with costs.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.,
Branch Manager, Central Bank of India ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion. In support of his case the petitioner filed affidavit in chief as well as documents namely loan sanction advice of the o.p. bank and also no due certificate dated 26.10.2012 and his letter dated 28.6.2013 to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Kulgachia, Howrah, requesting him to return the LIC Bond deposited with the bank as security and his letter addressed to Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Howrah, requesting him to redress his grievance and another letter dated 12.02.2014 written by him to the Assistant Director. On scrutiny of the record, it is noticed that the o.p. bank admitted that they received the whole amount and issued the no due certificate but could not return the LIC bond of the petitioner at the time of settlement of the loan. But later on they got the same and requested the petitioner by their letter dated 17.10.2014 to receive the LIC bond for the policy no. 433011936 and in spite of that the petitioner continued in the case. It is noticed by this Forum that when the borrower paid the total dues to the o.p. bank on 26.10.2012 and the loan account was closed then the o.p. bank would have handed over the LIC Bond to the petitioner which was deposited as security. But they misplaced the same and they had to collect another duplicate bond and then filed the same before the Forum and such acts on the part of the o.p. bank amounted to deficiency in service.
- Thus it is the admitted case of the o.p. that they are ready to handover the duplicate bond of the petitioner who had a due cause of action to file this case being a consumer as per definition of C. P. Act, 1986. In this case the petitioner prayed for return of the policy as well as compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental and physical harassment and also simple interest and costs and the petitioner duly proved his case that the o.p. bank has to return his policy bond and also pay him compensation and regarding the payment of interest the case of the petitioner failed as no proof to prove the said facts.
In the result, the application succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 534 of 2014 ( HDF 534 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against the o.p, Central Bank of India, with costs.
The petitioner is entitled to get back the policy bond as well as compensation for mental agony and harassment and the o.p., Central Bank of India, is directed to give back the duplicate policy bond to the petitioner as such misplacement is a natural phenomenon and also the petitioner is entitled to compensation for a sum of Rs. 8,000/- from the o.p. bank for the physical and mental agony as well as harassment caused to him by the o.p. due to deficiency in service and cost of Rs. 2,000/- for litigation and o.p. is directed to return the duplicate bond certificate as well as to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order failing the said amount would carry simple interest @ 9% p.a. and also the petitioner would have the liberty to put the final order in execution.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
