The instant case was started on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one Prabhat Kumar Agarwala  S/o. Late Ramnath Prasad Agarwala Near Ratua Bus Stand, P.O. & P.S. Ratua, Dist. Malda and the said petition of complaint was registered before this Forum as Complaint Case No. 86/2015.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that on the first day of March, 2017 the complainant deposited all the original property documents including original approved building plan (blue print) and approved estimate of building at Malda Branch of Indusind Bank Limited with Mr. Binod Sharma (Executive Advance)for availing loan of Rs. 20,000,00/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Only). The said blue print was mentioned in the Srl No. -7 of the list of documents dt. 01/03/2006 and the said approved estimate of building was mentioned in Serial No. 8 of the said list of documents dt. 01/03/2006. The Malda Branch Indusind Bank Limited granted and sanctioned the loan limit of Rs. 20,000,00/- against the mortgage of building owned by the complainant. Beside that the assessment of NSC of Rs. 1,00,000/-, fixed deposit Rs. 1,00,000/-  and personal guarantee from the wife of the complainant  was submitted. The bank agreed to charge the interest @ 10 % p.a. against prevailing BPLR @ 13.50%. On 07/07/2009  the bank vide letter bearing Memo No. CC/MA WB32 /2006-2007 informed the complainant about reducing the rate of interest with new terms and condition but in practical the bank started to charge much higher rate of interest @ 4.5% instead of 10.50%. On 12/02/2018 when the complainant’s auditor calculated the rate of interest charged by the bank and it was charged at the higher rate of interest @ 17% p.a. with the monthly rates. On 03/12/2008 the complainant filed a written complainant at the Malda Branch office and the said complaint was acknowledged by the bank on 05/12/2012. The complainant lodged complaint before the banking ombudsman of RBI requesting the RBI intervention about charging of higher rate of interest reducing the credit facility but till date no reply was received by the complainant from the end of RBI. Thereafter, on 2nd day of January, 2015 the complainant filed online grievance before the Asst. Director, Consumer Affairs  and F.B.P., Malda but no representative on behalf of the bank was present before the Assistant Director Consumer Affairs Department. So finding no other alternative the complainant has come before this Forum with a prayer to return back the original proved documents. Originally approved building plan (Blue Print)and approved estimate of building mentioned in the letter of acknowledgement dt. 28/11/2013 and also claim of Rs. 19,90,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Ninety Thousand Only) for loss of business suffered by the complainant as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as litigation cost.

 The petition has been contested by the O.P. Nos. 1,2, and 3 by filing the written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the Insurance Company contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in this Forum. The case is frivolous, harassing and misconceived. The complainant has not come to the Forum with a clean hand and he has suppressed the material fact.

The definite defense case is that the originally approved building plan blue print and approved estimate building documents have not been submitted by the complainant to the Indusind Bank Ltd. at the time of sanctioning loan so no question of return arises at all. The bank authority has given the reply to the complainant. So considering the facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

In order to prove the case the complainant himself was examined as P.W.-1 and cross-examined. He proved and marked the documents from Ext.-1 to Ext.-17. No other witness was examined on behalf of the complainant. The Bank Authority examined one Amlan Debnath as OPW-1 and he was cross-examined in the form of questionnaires. No other witness was examined on behalf of the O.P.    

Now the point for consideration  

Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

DECISION WITH REASONS::

At the time of argument the complainant argued that the bank has charged the higher rate than the agreed rate. So he is entitled to refund all the excess amount as realized by the bank. In reply the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. argued that only by submission the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as regards to the refund of excess amount. According to the argument as advanced by the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. is that in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint the complainant has prayed for return back the original property documents viz. originally approved building plan (blue print) and approved estimate of building as mentioned in the letter of acknowledgement  dt. 28/11/2013 and also prayed for compensation and litigation cost. But nowhere in the prayer portion has the complainant prayed for refund of the excess amount which was charged at the excess rate beyond the agreed rate. So the complainant is not entitled to get the amount.

This Forum is also of the same view of the argument as advanced by the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. to the effect that the complainant did not pay for refund of the excess amount. Moreover, in the petition it has been mentioned that complainant filed petition before the banking ombudsman of Reserve Bank of India as yet the complainant has not received any reply. So in this regard this Forum has nothing to do about the excess claim of money.

Next point is to be considered whether the complainant deposited the original document viz. approved building plan (blue print) and approved estimate of building as per letter dt. 28/11/2013. On perusal of the letter dt. 28/11/2013 which has been marked Ext.-8 it has been found that details of title deed as mentioned from Item No. 1 to 16 but the documents regarding originally approved building plan (blue print) and approved estimate of building has not been mentioned. The complainant has argued that it has been written ‘originally approved building plan and estimate of building was deposited but it is not understood whether such writing was made with the knowledge of the Bank Authority or not as because the Bank Authority has already informed the complainant vide letter that no such document was deposited. So such writings in the letter in page-2 of dt. 28/11/2013 indicates that it was written beyond the knowledge of the Bank Authority.

So considering the facts and circumstances the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

C.F. paid is correct.

Hence ordered that          

the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.          

Let a copy of this judgment be given to the    Complainant/O.P. free of cost on proper application.