DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK

Dated the 10th day of May, 2018

                                                                                                                    Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President

                                                                                                                                2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member

                                                                                                                                3. Afsara Begum, Member

C.D Case No. 02 of 2015

Sri Bijaya Kumar Majhi

S/o: Padmalochan Majhi

At: Belda

Po: Mauda

Via: Madhab Nagar                                                                                            

Ps: Bhadrak (R)

Dist: Bhadrak

                                                        ……………………. Complainant

            (Versus)

 1. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd.

     Remuna Branch

     At: Remuna Golei

     Po: Januganj

     Ps: Balasore (Industrial)

     Dist: Balasore, 756019

2. Secretary, Urban Co-op Bank Ltd.

    At: Town hall Chhack

    Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak

                                                    …………………………..Opp. Parties

Advocate for Complainant: Mr. R.K Nayak & Associates

Advocate for OP No. 1: Mr. L.  Nayak & B. K. Mohanty

Advocate for OP No. 2: Mr. R. K. Ray

Date of hearing: 09.08.2017

Date of order: 10.05.2018

SRI BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER

The dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.

The complainant is an unemployed young man requested OP No. 1 for sanction of loan for acquision of a motor cycle for his own convenience. OP No. 1 on scrutinizing the credit worthiness of the complainant, sanctioned a loan by which the complainant was able to purchase the motor cycle for his personal use in order to enhance his mobility. Complainant also opened a SB account with OP No. 2 Bank (hereafter said as “Urban Bank”) Vide account No- 3724 on dt. 04.10.2016 and obtained a cheque book of 50 leaves counting from 32051 to 32100 of which submitted 37 members of signed blank cheques serially on demand of the OP No. 1 (here in after said as “OP Bank”) to consider release of loan and executed all required documents as directed/instructed by OP Bank. After execution of papers and submission of signed blank cheques, OP Bank released the loan amounting to Rs 35,122/- repayable in 35 equated monthly installments commencing from 10th December, 2006 and the last installment was falling due on 10th December, 2009. After availing of such loan, the complainant started repayment as per repayment schedule as the post dated cheques given to OP Bank have been collected from Urban Bank as revealed from the accounts statement. When the complainant completed the payment of last installment due, requested the OP Bank to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC) which was refused by the OP Bank on the ground that the loan due for last installment along with late payment charges etc is out standing against the complainant. Unless the dues outstanding is paid by the complainant, issue of NOC is not possible under any circumstances. Complainant verified his account maintained with Urban Bank and found that the last cheque bearing No- 32074 has been collected and the proceeds of collection has been remitted to OP Bank on dt. 20.11.2008. Despite sincere and repeated requests made by the complainant, the OP Bank did not issue NOC to complainant. Being aggrieved by the attitude and behavior of the OP Bank, complainant preferred this dispute for proper adjudication with a prayer to issue direction to the OP Bank to issue No Objection Certificate along with cost and compensation.

O.Ps opposed the allegations and contested the case. OP Bank in submitting the written version through advocate has raised that the dispute is not maintainable as because there is no cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Forum and it involves disputed question of facts and accounts which cannot be a subject matter of dispute. Further the OP has also raised that the present matter is purely contractual in nature which is not maintainable in the consumer Forum. Further it is also raised that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of CP Act as the OP Bank deals with advancement of loan upon execution of loan agreement which is purely a contractual obligation and parties are bound by terms and conditions of that agreement. That apart it is submitted in admitting the availment of loan, repayment schedule and acceptance of post dated cheques of 37 numbers out of which cheques bearing No- 032051 to 032069 were cleared and rest other 5 numbers of cheques bearing No- 032070 to No- 032074 were dishonored for the reason “Drawee Banks Funds in sufficient”. But neither the bounced PD cheques nor the dishonor memos were provided by Urban Bank, where the complainant’s account was maintained, to the OP Bank. Due to repeated dishonor of post dates cheques, 11 numbers of PD cheques bearing no from 032075 to 032085 are kept unused with the OP Bank. Subsequent installments of EMI other then few were paid in cash not on the dates as per repayment schedule which compels the OP Bank to charge late payment charges and the complainantis liable to pay before issuance of NOC as claimed. Further out of total 35 monthly installments, 34 installments have been paid by the complainant, either in time or later, and the amount of one installment due still remains unpaid as the cheque sent for collection to Urban Bank is still retained with the said bank and the answering OP has neither received the bounced cheque with memo nor any collection proceed. Hence the complainant is liable to pay the last installment amount along with cheque bouncing charges and late payment cost to liquidate his loan account maintained with the OP Bank. Unless the amount outstanding against the complainant is paid, the OP Bank cannot issue NOC in his favour.

OP No. 2 is the Urban Bank contested the case in objecting that the cheques, which were submitted by the OP Bank to Urban Bank, Vide No- 032070 to 032074, were honored on different dates and the sale proceeds were also remitted to OP Bank on different dates. Accordingly the OP Bank had also issued a letter on dt. 18.07.2009 enquiring about the status of above cheques and in reply the Urban Bank Vide letter dt. 29.06.2009 stated that said cheques were collected and the collection proceeds were remitted to the OP Bank. Since the answering OP (Urban Bank) has cleared all cheques and remitted the collection proceeds and has not caused any deficiency in providing proper service, the case of the complainant does not bear any merit and liable to be dismissed.

Perused the complaint, written version of both O.Ps and materials on record and observed as follows:-

1. Admittedly the complainant is a borrower under OP No. 1 as he had borrowed a loan for purchase of a motor cycle. The amount borrowed, EMI fixed and the rate of interest charged by the OP Bank is not disputed. It is also admitted that complainant had opened a SB account bearing No- 3724 with OP No. 2 (Urban Bank) and also obtained a cheque book of 50 leaves (folios) starting from 032051 to 032100. It is also an admitted fact that complainant has submitted post dated cheques of 37 numbers (updated signed) as per advise and demand of OP Bank. The dispute arose when five numbers of PD cheques were dishonored by the Urban Bank as stated in the written version filed by OP Bank. In course of hearing complainant raised the issue of non issuance of No Objection Certificate even after the entire loan dues as per repayment schedule was paid by the complainant. On the other hand OP Bank objected in stating that the complainant has defaulted in repayment of loan installments in as many as 24 installments on the schedule date in every month and according to the terms of loan cum hypothecation agreement it is agreed between the parties to pay late payment charges in the event of default in payment on due dates and also the cost incurred for dishonor of PD cheques. It is also raised by the OP Bank about dishonor of 11 numbers of PD cheques by Urban Bank out of which five numbers of PD cheques bearing No- 032070 to 032074 were bounced for the reason “Drawee Banks Funds Insufficient” and the Urban Bank did not return the bounced instruments with dishonor memo as per Rule. When the OP Bank has not received the genuine loan dues outstanding against the complainant, how it would have been possible on part of OP Bank to issue No Objection Certificate. It is also added by the OP Bank in stating that the above mentioned PD cheques submitted to Urban Bank not yet returned back nor the amount of collection proceeds were remitted nor any dishonor memo was communicated to OP Bank which created this financial dereliction and resulted in non issuance of NOC for which the complainant and Urban Bank are responsible. In objecting the contention of OP Bank, complainant stated that all the cheques submitted by OP Bank for collection from Urban Bank have been collected as revealed from the accounts statement of the SB account No- 3724 of the complainant and pass book retained with him. As such it is crystal clear that he has paid all the loan dues of OP Bank and also genuinely entitled to get NOC. OP No. 2, the Urban Bank submitted in stating that all cheques have been collected and the collection proceeds has been remitted to OP Bank. Perused the materials on record and found that the Urban Bank failed to adduce any evidence in support of it’s claim to have remitted the collection proceeds and the mode of payment. Secondly when the OP Bank could not receive the collection proceed from Urban bank should have intimated complainant so as to enable him to intervene in the matter to resolve. But the silence of the OP Bank to intimate complainant aggravated the issue and resulted in filing of present dispute. In view of the afore discussed facts and both the O.Ps, much or less, are found negligent and deficient in providing proper service to the complainant and liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant.

ORDER

In result the complaint be and same is allowed against the O.Ps on contest. OP No. 2 is directed to pay the amount of collection proceeds to OP No. 1 (Bank) together with cost of Rs 2,000/- and compensation of Rs 3,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. OP No. 1 is directed to exempt other charges on account of bouncing of cheques and late payment charges, whatever may be the amount, to the complainant and issue NOC within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which additional interest on the afore mentioned amount @ 9% shall be charged in the event of non compliance of order.

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 10th May, 2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.