Date of Filing: 08-03-2016 Date of Final Order: 22-09-2017
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
This is an application u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The gist of the complaint case is that one Sri Supriya Dutta (hereinafter referred as Complainant) applied for a loan under the scheme of NABARD from the Central Bank of India, Sitai Branch (hereinafter referred as OP No.1) in 2003 and an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was sanctioned for the purpose of construction of Rural Godown under Account No. AGTL 50/03 (new Account No.2262845810). The Complainant entered into an Agreement with the Ops and opted for fixed rate of interest @10.05% per annum and the Complainant deposited 12 Nos. of KVPs and 4 Nos. of LIC certificates and title deeds along with Khatian of the land as collateral securities. The Complainant had already paid the loan amount with interest but the OP No.1 did not return the collateral securities i.e. 3 Nos. of KVPs and 1 No. of LIC certificate in the name of Smt. Gita Rani Dutta, mother of the Complainant in spite of repeated requests. It was found that the Bank authority charged interest @13% per annum in lieu of 10.05% per annum as agreed upon between them. The cause of action arose on and from 19.12.13 and thereafter on 27.08.15. The Complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.1 lakh for mental pain, agony and harassment, Rs.1 lakh for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceeding.
The OP No.1 and 2 put their appearance through their Ld. Agents and filed w/v on 13.06.16 inter-alia denying the material allegations made out in the complaint contending that the complaint case is not maintainable as there is no cause of action and the case is barred by law of limitation. It is the version of the Ops that the OP No.1 sanctioned a loan of Rs.10 lakh in the form of Term Loan for construction of Rural Agricultural Godown in favour of the Complainant on the basis of the application dated 13.09.2004 and the Complainant offered securities including 3 LIC Policies and some KVPs and the loan was sanctioned on 20.09.2003 vide Account No. AGTL 50/03 which was re-numbered as 2262845810 on condition that the loan amount would be repayable by equated quarterly installments. It is also the version of the Ops that the Complainant deposited 15 nos. of KVPs and 3 Nos. of LIC Policies as collateral securities of the Term Loan and the Ops denied that the Complainant deposited LIC Policy No.459562696 in the name of Smt. Gita Rani Dutta. The Complainant was negligent for making timely repayment of his equated quarterly installments and defaulted in payment of the loan. As a result, the loan Account was turned into a Non-performing Asset (NPA) on 01.04.10 and the Op Bank exercised the right of lien and pledge, encashed the 3 KVPs being Nos. 77 BB 421759, 77 BB 421758 and 77 BB 421751 on 15.02.12 and the maturity amount was adjusted in the Loan Account of the Complainant. Ultimately, the Complainant made a proposal to the Bank for One Time Settlement of the loan by paying only Rs.6,50,000/- which is a part of the total dues of the Bank. The OP Bank accepted the One Time Settlement proposal of the Complainant and received only Rs.6,50,000/- towards full and final settlement of the loan by waiving a huge portion of interest and sacrificing a huge amount of dues from the principal amount also. It is also the case of the Ops that the Complainant got back all collateral securities except 3 Nos. of KVPs which had already been adjusted by the Bank with the loan amount. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as alleged against the Ops. The settlement between the Complainant and the Ops was arrived in 2013 and lastly, on 19.12.13 when the Complainant got back all his documents/collateral securities and so, the case is barred by law of limitation. The Ops prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
On the basis of above conversation of both sides, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Is the case barred by law of limitation?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service, as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point Nos.1 & 2
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition.
Ld. Agent for the Complainant submitted that the Complainant is a consumer under the Ops as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Ld. Agents for the Ops did not say anything on the Point No.1 and 2.
On going through the written complaint, w/v, evidence on affidavit adduced by both parties and the documents on record, we find that the Complainant is a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and this Forum has both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.3.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant submitted that cause of action arose on and from 19.12.13 and thereafter on 27.08.15 when the Complainant received ambiguous loan account statement from the OP No.1. It is contended that the complaint petition is well within the period of limitation.
In reply, Ld. Agent for the Ops submitted that Complainant applied for One Time Settlement (Annexure D-6) and on acceptance of the proposal and on receipt of the agreed amount of One Time Settlement, the Complainant got back all his collateral securities on 19.12.13 (Annexure D-7). He argued that the Complainant had endorsed (Annexure D-7) that he received all the documents and no document was left with the Bank.
The Complainant asserted that he got an ambiguous Bank Statement on 27.08.15 but the original Bank Statement dated 27.08.15 was not filed. It is the version of the Ops that 3 KVPs out of 12 KVPs were adjusted with the loan account when the Complainant remained irregular in the NPA category. The sanctioned letter of Loan dated 20.09.17(Annex. D-2) revealed that the Complainant assigned 3 LIC Policies in favour of the Bank but according to the version of the Complainant, he assigned 4 LIC Policies in favour of the Bank. It appears from the Ext.D-7 that Complainant got back all his documents on 19.12.13. The period of limitation is 2 years from the date when the cause of action arose and the District Forum can entertain any application even after the period of limitation, if the Complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of 2 years, but in the present case, the Complainant has not assigned any reason for not filing the complaint within the period of 2 years. It has not been explained how and when he received the Bank’s Statement dated 27.08.15 specially when the O.Ps have asserted that the complainant has no dues.
Considering every aspect, we are of the view that the Complainant has failed to establish that cause of action arose on 27.08.15. We find that the relationship between the Complainant and the Ops ended on 19.12.13 in connection with Loan when the Complainant got back all his securities on payment of the amount of One Time Settlement as agreed between the parties. The Complainant has not assigned any reason to substantiate that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complainant within the period of two years from the date of one time settlement between the parties. Therefore, we hold that the case is hopelessly barred by law of limitation.
Point Nos. 4 & 5.
The Complainant has failed to establish that the Ops have any deficiency in service as he himself filed application for one time settlement and got back all his rest collateral securities on 19.12.13 except three KVPs which had been encashed and adjusted with the loan before onetime settlement.
In our considered opinion, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Reasons for delay : The Complaint Case was filed on 08.03.16 and admitted on 16.03.16. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 put their appearance through their Ld. Agents and filed W/V on 13.06.16. This Forum has taken its best endeavour to dispose of the Complaint Case as expeditiously as possible in view of Section 13(3A) of the C.P. Act and day to day orders will speak for itself.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against OP Nos.1 & 2 without cost.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action as per rules. The copy of the Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
