West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/41/2017

Sri Vijay Madhai - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, IndusInd Bank Ltd. (CFD) - Opp.Party(s)

Dilip Kumar Bharttacharya

26 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

     Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and 

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member.

 

Complaint Case No.41/2017

 

             Sri Vijay Madhai, S/o Harijan Madhai, residing at Nimpura, P.O. Nimpura, P.S.

             Kharagpur (T), District - Paschim Medinipur…….………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

            The Branch Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd. (CFD), Kharagpur Branch, at Atwal Building, 

            Inda, O.T. Road, P.O. Inda, P.S. Kharagpur (T), District- Paschim Medinipur.

                                                                                                 .....……….….Opp. Party.

                                                     

              For the Complainant: Mr. Dilip Kumar Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

              For the O.P.            : Mr. Somnath Guin, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -26/10/2017

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President –This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Sri Vijay Madhai against the above named O.P., alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

               Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

                    The complainant is reputed a businessman and a permanent customer of the O.P.-Bank for the last 10 years.  The complainant used to take loan from the O.P.-Bank every year for purchasing a new car each time for his business purpose and he used to repay the loan installments regularly without any delay.  Surprisingly, the complainant found in CIBIL report that there are huge outstanding amount in his said loan account although the complainant regularly paid installments in due time.  The complainant then through his guarantor Ranbir Singh sent a mail on 11/08/2016 to the O.P. and the O.P.

Contd…………………..P/2

 

 

( 2 )

 advised him to deposit Rs.1,000/- for keeping  good record in CIBIL.  O.P. also told him that their bank had taken up the matter with appropriate authority for doing the needful.  Nine days thereafter, the complainant against sent a reminder mail to the O.P. to resolve the problem.  On 23/08/2016, the complainant paid Rs.1,000/- to the O.P. Thereafter when the complainant wanted to take loan from Axis Bank, then the officer of the said bank rejected his loan application due to bad report of the complainant in CIBIL.  The complainant informed the said matter to the O.P. and the O.P. sent a mail to Axis Bank stating that the complainant is a good and regular customer regarding payment of loan amount.  Since thereafter the O.P. did not resolve the CIBIL problem.  The business of the complainant has been totally hampered and he suffered a lot.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the O.P. to resolve the CIBIL dispute of the complainant and an order of compensation of  Rs.30,000/- and Rs.1,60,000/- towards harassment and professional loss respectively and for an order of cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-.     

                  The O.P.-Bank has contested this case by filing a written version.

                   Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite parties-bank that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case, that the complaint is barred by limitation, principal of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence, that the complaint is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint.  It is also the case of the O.P. that the complainant availed loan facility for purchasing a vehicle for business purpose and as such by no stretch of imagination, the purported dispute of the complainant falls under the purview of C.P. Act.  O.P. therefore claims dismissal of the complaint with cost.

                 To prove his case, the complainant Vijay Madhai has examined himself as PW-1 by tendering a written examination-in-chief and during his evidence, few documents have been marked as exhibit 1, A & B respectively.  On the other hand, O.P. has adduced no evidence.  

 

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?
2. Is the complainant a consumer under the provision of C.P. Act ?
3. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?    

                    Contd…………………..P/3

                                                             

                                                                                            ( 3 )

 

Decision with reasons

           Point nos.1&2:-

For the sake of convenience and brevity, both the above points are taken up together for consideration. At the very outset, it appears that it is none but the complainant himself in his petition of complaint has admitted but that he is a businessman by occupation and for the purpose of his business, he used to take loan every year from the O.P.-Bank for purchasing a new car.  The alleged dispute in question arises regarding such loan transaction with the O.P.-Bank. Since admittedly the complainant took such loan from the O.P.-Bank for his business purpose and since it is not the case of the O.P. that he availed such loan exclusively for the purpose of earning  his livelihood by way of self employment, so, in view of section 2(1) (d) of the C.P. Act, the present complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the provision of C.P. Act and as such the present complaint is not maintainable.

                           These two points are accordingly decided against the complainant.

            Point no. 3:

                In view of our above findings in point nos. 1&2, the question of

           deficiency in service does not arise.

                                      This  point is therefore decided in the negative and against the          

           complainant.

           Point no.4:

                                      In view of our above findings under point Nos.1,2 & 3, the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs, as prayed for.

                                    All the points are accordingly disposed of.

                                    In the result, the complaint case fails,

                                                       Hence, it is,

                                                   Ordered,

                           that the complaint case no.41/2017  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                                   Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

                 Dictated & corrected by me

                    Sd/-B. Pramanik.                       Sd/-P. K. Singha                         Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                            President                                 Member                                    President 

                                                                                                                         District Forum

                                                                                                                     Paschim Medinipur