West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/3/2017

Shyam Sundar Saha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Indian Bank,Balurghat Branch, (Mr.Santosh Kr. Mata) (Municipal Mini Market), P.O - Opp.Party(s)

Shantanu Dey

23 May 2017

ORDER

Fed up with the delay caused by the OP Bank to return the security deed and LICI policy of the complainant, the complainant has come up before this Forum filing the instant case and hence, arises the instant case.

 

The facts relevant to consider in this case may be epitomized as follows.

 

The complainant took a loan of Rs.87,000/- from the OP Bank in the year 2001, depositing the LICI policy and one sale deed as security against the said loan. The said loan was not repaid by the complainant in terms of the agreement made by him. Therefore, the loan file was assigned by the OP-Bank to the Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (ARCIL) for settlement and recovery of the outstanding amount of the loan. The loan amount was settled at Rs.15,000/- by the ARCIL and accordingly payment was also made on 22.11.2016 in favour of the ARCIL by the complainant. Clearance certificate was issued by the ARCIL on 6.1.2017 in favour of the complainant. The complainant had a Savings Bank Account No.543688601 maintained by the OP-Bank. The OP-Bank blocked the S.B. A/c of the complainant and did not allow him to make any withdrawal from that account. One of the LICI policies also got matured on 28.8.2015. But the OP-Bank did not release the said policy documents in favour of the complainant resulting in huge loss incurred by him. A legal notice was also sent by the complainant to the OP-Bank on 9.1.2017, asking the OP-Bank to return the security documents to the complainant and to explain the reason for restriction imposed on withdrawal of money from S.B. A/c of the complainant. But, the OP-Bank did not show any positive gesture. On 25.11.2016 the complainant approached the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices seeking relief for return of his documents and also for unblocking of SB A/c, but such move of the complainant also failed to bring the desired result. Hence, the case is filed praying for compensation and return of security documents from the OP-Bank.

 

The OP-Bank is contesting the case by filing written statement wherein is contended inter alia that the complainant was sanctioned a long of Rs.87,000/- on 5.12.2001 under PMGY Scheme to which the complainant agreed to repay the loan in 60 EMI of Rs.1,960/- each. After a few months, the complainant became a defaulter of payment of the installments of the loan as agreed upon. Thereafter, the loan account was categorized as non-performing asset (NPA) on 22.8.2003 and on 28.12.2010 loan file along with all documents was sent to ARCIL for settlement and recovery of the outstanding amounts of loan. Outstanding amount of loan was about Rs.3,06,046/- calculated up to 20.2.2017. The OP-Bank did not receive any instructions either from ARCIL or from its higher authority for closing the loan account of the complainant and, therefore, the loan account of the complainant was not closed. If the loan account of the complainant was not closed, the Bank could not return the security documents to the complainant and the Bank sought for a short period from the complainant for returning his documents after getting necessary official instructions from ARCIL or its higher authority. The SB A/c of the complainant was held up in as much as the complainant was a defaulter in payment of loan amount to the Bank. The OP-Bank has not committed any kind of deficiency in service and therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as prayed for from the OP-Bank.

 

            Upon the averments of both the parties the following issues are formulated for consideration in the case.

ISSUES

1. Is the OP-Bank guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
2. Is the complainant entitled to get relief / compensation as prayed for?

 

EVIDENCE  OF  THE  PARTIES

            The complainant, Shyam Sunder Saha, has filed an affidavit-in-chief and has also got himself cross examined as PW-1.  The documents admitted in evidence are marked as Ext. Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8-series, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14-series, 15, 16-series as detailed in list of documents, kept in the record. On the other hand, the Branch Manager of OP-Bank i.e. Santosh Kumar Mata has also filed an affidavit-in-chief and has got himself examined as OPW-1. The documents produced on behalf of OP-Bank are kept in the record.

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

Issue Nos.1 & 2

            Ld. Lawyer appearing for the complainant has strenuously argued before this Forum that the complainant has filed the instant case alleging deficiency in service by the OP-Bank. According to him, the loan amount was settled by ARCIL and payment of the settled amount i.e. Rs.15,000/- was also made to ARCIL by the complainant on 22.11.2016. ARCIL is the recovery agent of the OP-Bank and it cannot be said that it got no instruction whatsoever from ARCIL regarding settlement of payment of loan amount by the complainant. The OP-Bank did not return the security documents to the complainant, evev after repayment of loan and this act on the part of the OP-Bank amounts to deficiency in service. It is further contended by him that the OP-Bank blocked the SB A/c of the complainant and did not allow him to withdraw money from that account. This high handed act of the OP-Bank is another instance, as goes his submission, of deficiency in service on the part of OP-Bank. It is further argued on behalf of the complainant that the LICI policy which was deposited with the OP-Bank got matured, but the bank did not give any information of the policy being matured to him and this is also a kind of deficiency in service on the part of OP-Bank. He has further also submitted that the complainant did not get his daughter medically treated properly due to paucity of fund, as OP-Bank did not allow him to withdraw any money from his S.B. Account and therefore, he had incurred a heavy loss owing to unscrupulous act on the part of the OP-Bank. So, he prays for passing an order of compensation against the OP-Bank for loss and harassment caused to him unnecessarily by the OP-Bank.

 

            Ld. Lawyer appearing for the OP-Bank has contended that the OP-Bank is ready and willingly to return the security deposits to the complainant. But, before doing that, there are certain official formalities required to be performed and these formalities will certainly take some times. The bank only sought for a short time from the complainant for completion of official formalities before the documents are returned to the complainant. But the complainant has filed the instant case without giving such opportunity to the OP-Bank. The OP-Bank has committed no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.

 

            Perused the complaint, written statement of OP-Bank and the evidence on record. Considered all these along with the submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties.

 

            The allegations against the OP-Bank is that the Bank did not return the security documents to the complainant, even after settlement and repayment of the loan to ARCIL and this act is termed as deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Bank by the complainant. It is admitted facts that complainant took the loan in the year 2001and that he did not repay the loan as agreed upon by and between the parties. The loan was categorised as NPA and the same was referred to ARCIL for settlement and recovery. The ARCIL settled the amount at Rs.15,000/- and payment of Rs.15,000/- was also made to ARCIL by the complainant on 22.11.2016. On 25.11.2016 the complainant approached the office of A.D., C.A. & F.B.P. seeking relief of return of security documents etc. All these facts go undisputed. Let us proceed to see now whether these facts give any indication to the effect that the proper and reasonable time was given to the OP-Bank for completion of official formalities relevant to return the security documents. The complainant approached the office of the Assistant Director as aforesaid with allegation against the OP-Bank within 3 (three) days of settlement of the case by the ARCIL. The case was settled by the ARCIL on 22.11.2016. No clearance certificate was also issued in favour of the complainant by the ARCIL. The complainant did not wait for issuance of clearance certificate by the ARCIL. He filed his complaint before the Assistant Director as aforesaid on 25.11.2016. He took the loan in the year 2001, but could not repay the loan within 17 years of his taking loan. But now, what is found is that he is by no means ready to wait even for 17 days for filing his complaint before the said Assistant Director, alleging deficiency in service against the OP-Bank for non-return of his security documents. Taking all these facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, we cannot but say that there is no reason whatsoever of the complainant jumping into taking such a precipitate action for getting his own documents returned from the OP-Bank. The OP-Bank is discharging its duty in official manner and the loan was also sanctioned and disbursed to the complainant in discharge of his official duty. The loan file was made over to ARCIL by the OP-Bank in exercise of official duty. The findings of ARCIL must reach the OP-Bank in its own course and it is only at that time the OP-Bank is expected to return the security documents to the complainant after having completed all other official formalities of it. But the complainant is not ready, as it is found now from the facts and circumstances of the case, to spare a reasonable time to the OP-Bank for completion of necessary formalities required for returning the documents to the complainant. We find no reason of the complainant for filing the complaint before this Forum also with such unusual hurriedness. The OP-Bank is found to be not deficient in service as alleged by the complainant. Such unusual hurriedness in filing the case does not behave a man like the complainant, because latches or negligence has entered into his soul. He did not repay the loan in 17 years. Why? Where was his hurriedness at that time in the matter of repayment of loan? In the matter of repayment of loan he could not wake up from his slumber, whereas he woke up to get return of his documents from the OP-Bank within 3 (three) days of the payment of settled amount (which is surprisingly very meager), especially when the clearance certificate was yet to be issued by the ARCIL in favour of him. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, we are, however, not inclined to hold that there was any deficiency in service committed by the OP-Bank in not returning the security documents to the complainant as alleged.

 

Ld. Lawyer appearing for the complainant has argued that the OP-Bank has committed deficiency in service by not informing anything to the complainant of the maturity of LICI policy. We do not think that it is duty of the Bank to inform to the customer about the maturity of the policy deposited; rather it is duty of the customer himself to keep information about the maturity of the policy. The OP-Bank has not withdrawn the maturity value of the LICI of the complainant and it establishes that the Bank does not have any malafide intention on their part. 

 

It has further been argued on behalf of the complainant that the OP-Bank blocked the SB A/c of the complainant and did not allow him to withdraw any amount from that bank account which is alleged to be an instance of deficiency in service on the part of OP. Usually, a creditor will leave no stone unturned to secure payment of his loan and if he does anything for that purpose, he cannot be blamed for that. Regard being had to these considered opinion of us, we make no scruple to say that the OP-Bank being the creditor of the complainant cannot be charged with deficiency in service for blocking SB A/c of the complainant maintained in the Bank within its reach to secure realization of its dues from the complainant.

 

Upon what have been discussed above, and in view of the facts and circumstances also pointed out above, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP – Bank as alleged by the complainant and therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as prayed for from the OP-Bank. He i.e. the complainant is only entitled to get back the security documents from the OP-Bank and order is issued to this effect as hereunder.

 

            In the result, the case succeeds in part. Both the issues as referred to above are decided accordingly.

            Hence,

O R D E R E D

            That the complaint be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OP-Bank. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the complainant as discussed above, there is no order passed as to costs of the proceedings.

 

            The OP-Bank is directed to return the security documents / deeds deposited in the Loan Account No.543756785 of the complainant within a month of the passing of this order.

 

            Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost at once to the parties concerned.