MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

          The Appeal No. A/1084/2017 which was preferred by the Appellant/Complainant challenging the judgment and order dated 23.05.2017 passed by the Learned District Forum, Dakshin Dinajpur, West Bengal, in Complaint Case No. CC/3/2017, was taken up for passing necessary order. 

          The Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment and order allowing the complaint in part against the Respondent/O.P. Bank without any cost and directed the Respondent/O.P. to return the security documents/deeds deposited with them against the Loan Account No. 543756785 by the Appellant/Complainant within a month from the date of passing the impugned judgment and order.

          The fact of the case in brief was that the Appellant/Complainant received from the Respondent/O.P. Bank a loan for an amount of Rs.87,000/- in the year 2001 depositing with the said bank two LIC policies and one sale deed as security against the said loan.  The subject loan was supposed to be paid back in 60 EMIs of Rs.1,960/-.  The Appellant/Complainant, after a few months became defaulter.  As a result, the loan amount was declared as NPA and ultimately sent to Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Limited (ARCIL) for taking necessary action towards settlement of the dispute.  The loan amount was ultimately settled at Rs.15,000/- at the intervention of the ARCIL.  The Appellant/Complainant paid the settled amount immediately thereafter and claimed the security documents/deeds etc. deposited against his loan account from the Respondent/O.P. Bank.  The Respondent/O.P. Bank did not handover the demanded documents in spite of persuasion being made and communications to that effect including legal notice were sent to it by the Appellant/Complainant.

          The Respondent/O.P. Bank, as alleged, even made the harassment of the Appellant/Complainant graver by (1) not informing the maturity date of one of the two LIC policies and thereby put the Appellant/Complainant to great financial loss and (2) closing the savings bank account of the Appellant/Complainant which was being maintained with the Respondent/O.P. Bank and thereby restrained from transacting his own money at times of crisis. 

          Being aggrieved with the above-mentioned deficiencies in rendering services by the Respondent/O.P. Bank, the Ld. Advocate preferred the instant complaint before the Learned District Forum.  The judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Forum in the said complaint case was put to challenge in the instant appeal.

          Heard Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides.

          Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant placed before the Bench the fact in the same lines as narrated in the complaint and demanded the entire claimed amount as per prayer detailed therein.

          The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent/O.P., on the other hand, referred to different pages of the case record and submitted that only one instalment was paid in respect of one of the two LIC policies.  The Appellant/Complainant, as contended, did not have any right to claim any compensation in respect of the said lapsed policy.  The Ld. Advocate continued to submit that the terms of settlement were not duly communicated to the Respondent/O.P. Bank by the ARCIL.  The Respondent/O.P. Bank was not in the know as to whether there was at all any clearance towards release of the documents as per terms of the settlement as claimed by the Appellant/Complainant.  The Respondent/O.P. requested the Appellant/Complainant to bear with his problem for returning the documents as per the terms of the Agreement after obtaining clearance from the ARCIL which the Appellant/Complainant refused to accede to although he knew that he received the loan long 16 years back and continued to remain defaulter till 22.11.2016 when he paid a paltry amount of Rs.15,000/- for settlement of a comparatively much bigger loan amount.

          As submitted further, the ARCIL in its letter dated March 1, 2017, running page 50, communicated to the Respondent/O.P. Bank about the settlement of the loan and the action they were going to take towards issuing of the no due certificate and also for sending LIC Polices and releasing original title deed.  Unfortunately, as he continued, the Appellant/Complainant resorted to the filing of the complaint case on 19.01.2017, that is, well before the receipt of the letter of the ARCIL by the Respondent/O.P.

          Ld. Advocate, with the above submission, prayed for the appeal to be dismissed affirming the impugned judgment and order.

          Perused the papers on record and considered submissions of the Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides.  The record was conspicuous about the fact that the Appellant/Complainant was defaulter of a loan taken long 16 years back on an understanding that the repayment of the subject loan would be made through a definite number of instalments at the rate of a fixed EMI.  He, however, became a defaulter by not paying back the loan as per settled terms and conditions and continued to remain a defaulter for long 16 years.

          It was quite likely that the Respondent/O.P. Bank should take all possible measures to ensure recovery of the outstanding loan amount and that he did unto last although its efforts failed to derive the desired result.  The Appellant/Complainant appear to have consciously resorted to an unlawful enrichment by claiming a huge compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- in addition to its demand of returning the documents/deeds although he knew that he, himself had violated the terms of the loan by being the defaulter till he was given a relief after expiry of almost 16 years to settle the claim by making payment of a paltry amount of Rs.15,000/- only.  What was more, as it revealed from the record, the Appellant/Complainant was not considerate to the request of the financier bank for allowing it time till ARCIL gave it the required information about the settlement of claim and the terms laid down therein.  The record revealed that the complaint case was filed before the Ld. District Forum well before any intimation towards settlement of claim was received from the ARCIL.  The claim, in the said perspective, appeared not to be taken cognizance of.         

          I have gone through the record and appreciate that there was lapses on the part of the Respondent/O.P. also for non-compliance of the order of the Ld. District Forum within the given deadline and closing the Savings Bank account of the Appellant/Complainant depriving him of the scope of operating his own account and thereby transacting his own money but, at the same time appreciate that the lapses on the part of the Appellant/Complainant itself outweighed the same on the part of the Respondent/O.P.

          In the facts and circumstances narrated above, I felt that there were reasons to be at one with the observations of the Ld. District Forum in the impugned judgment and order.

          Hence, ordered that the Appeal be and the same stands dismissed.  The impugned judgment and order stands affirmed.  The Respondent/O.P. is hereby directed to comply with the directions passed upon him in the impugned judgment and order within 45 days from the date of instant order, failing which, the Appellant/Complainant will have the liberty to put the order into execution.  No order as to costs.