Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the service extended primarily by Bank of India Tarakeshwar Branch and the concerned Zonal Manager of the same Bank in the matter of turning back of the documents related to collateral securities retained by the said bank against two loans taken by the Complainant, even after final settlement of the said loans, the instant case has been filed by the complainant, u/s 35 (1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The fact of the case is as follows.
Reportedly, the Complainant was recipient of two loans, the first one, a house building loan of Rs.5 lacs and the other one a Kishan Cash Credit loan of Rs.9.5 lacs from the OP bank in his personal name and in the name of M/S Reema Traders, the proprietor of which was the Complainant himself, respectively. The loans were granted against certain collateral securities viz. title deed of the Complainant’s property and certain Insurance policies, out of which one policy was opened to cover the aforementioned loans.
The Complainant himself admits in his BNA that because of being defaulter in the matter of repayment of the loans the loan accounts were classified as Non-performing Assets by the OP Bank.
However, on being approached by the Complainant, OP Bank expressed their inclination towardsa compromise settlement and eventually both the accounts were settled on the basis of mutual compromise against an amount of Rs.3,60,000/-
The Complainant claims to have paid the amount of Rs.3,60,000/- to the full satisfaction of the opposite parties and admits to have received the title deed from the OP which was retained as a collateral security.
Accordingly ‘No-dues certificate’ is reported to have been issued by the OP Bank and the accounts were closed under ‘compromise settlement’.
Thereafter, the Complainant approached to the OP Bank to return the other securities which were kept with the custody of the bank authority at the time of sanction of the loan.
But, allegedly in spite of several persuasions and legal notices the OP Bank refused to turn back the same.
Here the Complainant appears to be a consumer and the OP Bank, a service provider.
It is claimed by the Complainant that the cause of action first arose on 14.02.2021 when the OP remained silent even after receipt of the legal notice and there was continued cause of action. Considering the Bank’s reluctance to turn back the original documents related to the insurance policies as deficiency of service, the instant complaint petition is filed with the prayers to impose direction on the OP Bank to turn back the original documents related to the collateral securities, to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-for ‘negligence and harassment’, Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony, to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost, Rs.1,00,000/- towards ‘interest on the value of securities’ and further Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency of services.
The Complainant along with their petition has submitted copies of bank statements dtd.22.03.2019 certifying the closure of accounts under ‘compromise settlement’, in respect of the Complainant and M/S Reema Traders the proprietor of which was the Complainant himself, legal notice sent to the OP Bank, written communication made to the OP Bank, the OP Bank’s communication made to the Life Insurance Corporation of India, first premium receipt and statement of account against ICICI Life Insurance policy and fund statements in respect of the said policy.
The OP Bank contested the case by submitting written version, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument in which all the charges of deficiency of service and negligence leveled against them have been denied.
The OP Bank further states inter alia in their representations that the Complainant was a willful defaulter in the matter of repayment of the loans and the bank was compelled to issue several notices and after repeated chasing, both the loan accounts were settled under OTS scheme against a payment of Rs.3,60,000/-. Consequent upon the same, both the loan accounts were closed. The OP Bank points out in their evidence on affidavit that the collateral securities in the form of insurance policies were adjusted against the said loans as those were assigned to the bank and resultantly, at present the return of the same to the Complainant is out of question.
Issues for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
- Whether this Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief.
Decision with reason
Issue No. 1
In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records it transpires that the complainant is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are concerned.
Issue No. 2
Both the complainant and the opposite party 1 are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly.
The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-
Thus this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.
Issue No. 3 and 4
Materials on records are perused. The issues being mutually inter-related, are taken together for convenient disposal.
Discussion on the issues like granting of the loan, repayment of the loan, the Complainant’s being defaulter in the matter of repayment of the loan, declaration of the loan accounts as NPA etc. will be redundant as, eventually the matter was settled and no dues certificate was issued by the Bank authority.
Now the only dispute revolves around the issue whether the Complainant is entitled to get back the documents related to the collateral securities viz. the insurance policies.
Now so far as the CC loan taken from the OP Bank for M/S Reema Traders, the proprietor of which is the Complainant is concerned, this Commission cannot be inclined to interfere as the loan appears to have been taken for commercial purpose. Moreover it is nowhere substantiated that the trading business was the sole source of livelihood of the Complainant.
As regards the house building loan, the Complainant has not furnished the required details such as the date of sanction of the loan, relevant terms and conditions, defaulting period, communications received from the OP bank regarding the repayment of the loan, exhaustive backdrop of the so called compromise settlement, conditions on which the insurance policies were deposited to the OP Bank as collateral securities etc.
In the evidence on affidavit the Complainant agitates only over non-return of ‘ICICI Prudential Life Insurance’ policy. But the Complainant did not feel it a necessity to make the concerned Insurance Company a party in this case. Thus this complaint petition suffers from non-joinder of party.
However, from the extant records it primarily transpires that the Complainant was a defaulter and in course of onetime settlement of the loan, the collateral security in the form of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance had been adjusted against the loan as the said policy was assigned to the Bank.
Thus, on meticulous scrutiny of all the aspects of the case, this Commission is of the view that deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the bank cannot be established in unequivocal terms. Moreover the Complaint petition suffers from insufficient documentation.
Hence it is
ORDERED
That the complainant case no.87/2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
No order as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The final order will be available in the website www.confonet.nic.in.
