FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT
Presented by:
Minakshi Chakraborty, Presiding Member.
Brief facts of the case: This case has been filed U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that the complainant has maintained a personal savings account under the opno1 bank being saving A/c no.02200100001051 for about last 50 years, where he used to deposit his small savings and withdrawal at the time need and also credited subsidies of LPG Gas connection and the petitioner deposit the cheque being no.000007 over the cash counter on 11.10.2021 for encashment but which was returned to the petitioner with state that the petitioners’ account has been blocked and the petitioner several times requested or appeal to the op no.1 authority to unblocked the said account but the op no.1 Bank till to authority did not unblocked the said account rather it is turning from one table to another table to the petitioner for two weeks. On 5.11.2021 the complainant sent a legal notice to the bank requesting to unblock the said account but all in vain.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 100,000/- for mental agony for deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost.
Defense Case:- The opposite party No. 1 contests the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him and stated that a deed bearing no.03197/1985 registered in the office of the ADSR, Chinsurah on 29.7.1985 and recorded in Bookno.1, Volume no.56 page from 6 to 11 for the year 1985 is lying with the op/bank as mortgage in connection with loan account no.02200500027104 in which the complainant of this instant complaint case is a borrower as a chairman of the VIP Cooperative Labour Contract and Construction society Ltd. The said deed of sale was executed in favour of Tarak Nath Mukhopadhyay, s/o Late Satish Chandra Mukhopadhyay resident of Manashpur Basti, P.O-Bandel, P.S-Chinsurah, Dist-Hooghly having an area of 03 cottah 01 chittak 13 square feet and 0.051 acre of land situated at Mouza: Keota, J.L no-7 R.S Plot no.5257 L.R. plot no1139 under L.R Khatian no.943/1 under Bandel Gram Panchayet. The owner of the property was Tarak Nath Mukhopadhyay who is the guarantor of the said loan account being no.02200500027104. The loan has been granted to VIP cooperative Labour Contract and Construction Society Ltd. wherein the complainant Rajendra Kumar Singh happens to be the Chairman of the said society and is the borrower of the said loan account. One paresh Chandra Mondal is the secretary of the society. The said loan account has been declared NPA. The loan account has become irregular and several attempts has been taken by the bank to recover the said loan amount from the complainant as a Chairman of the said society, the complainant herein but all efforts are in vain.
It came to the notice of the bank that the complainant of this case and the secretary of VIP society, namely Paresh Chandra Pal in collusion with the guarantor cum owner of the mortage property, namely Tarak Nath Mukhoadhyay sold out the mortgaged property to Mukesh Mali and Radha Debi Mali by virtue of a deed of sale being no.03853/2007 registered in the office of the ADSR, Hooghly and recorded in Book no.1, CD volume no.5 pages from 3062 to 3075 for the year 2007 without taking any consent from the op. It is a fraudulent execution of Deed of transfer during the mortgage containing a false statement of consideration. The chairman, the complainant herein is jointly equally and severally liable for the fraudulent execution of the mortgage property wherein the public money is involved. The op is a nationalized institution and as the public money is involved the complainant though have another savings account with the UCO bank, Bandel branch cannot be become a bona fide customer as because as per policy of RBI and under the provision of Right to Set Off the Bank will freeze all other accounts of a defaulter lying with the bank to recover the outstanding amount. A set off clause is a legal clause that gives a lender the authority to seize a debtor’s deposits when they default on a loan. It is a fact that a cheque has been deposited on 11.10.2021 for encashment as the account of Rajendra Kumar Singhs has been blocked as he is also an account holder as well as defaulter of the same branch of a NPA loan account as stated above. The complainant cheated and grab the public money and taking the advantage of the Consumer Laws is trying to distort the fact making false allegations of deficiency in service in his savings account. The NPA account holders are listed in the operating system and therefore this savings account is blocked until and unless the outstanding dues are not repaid as the public money at large are involved and as the complainant is a defaulter his savings account will not unlocked. A complaint in this regard has also been made before the Chinsurah P.S. on 12.2.2018 stating the facts by the bank. The amount is still outstanding against the complainant and several attempts has been made to recover the public money from the complainant and the savings account has been freezed/ blocked as per the provisions of Right to set off and on 5.11.2021 the complainant sent a legal notice but the bank had already stated the facts to the complainant regarding the freeze of the savings account as attempts to recover the loan amount from the complainant since long has been failed and he is a defaulter and not all be treated as a bona fide customer. Until and unless the complainant repay the outstanding loan amount, the savings account cannot be unblocked and the bank will always try to recover the outstanding amount whenever any amount is lying in any of the account of NPA account holder unlike the complainant. The complainant is a consumer under the op bank and at the same time he is also a NPA/ defaulter account holder with huge outstanding loan amount where the public money is involved. Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the op bank. The said cheque was returned as the savings account of the complainant is blocked. So, the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite party no. 1.
The O.P. No. 1 have filed evidence on affidavit which reiterates the averments of the written version.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant and opposite party no. 1 have filed separate written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides shall have to be taken into consideration for disposal of the instant proceeding.
Heard argument of both sides at length. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and documents produced by the parties.
From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue no.1:
In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.The point is thus answered in the affirmative
Issue no.2:
Both the complainant and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly and the claims do not exceed the pecuniary limit of this commission. This point is thus disposed of accordingly.
Issue nos. 3 & 4:
Both the issues are taken up simultaneously for the sake of convenience.
At the very outset it is to be cleared that instead of receiving notice O.P 2 did not turn up. So the case is automatically running ex parte against O.P2.
The specific case of the complainant is that he has a personal savings account with O.P1 bank being saving A/c no.02200100001051 for about last 50 years, where he used to deposit his small savings and withdraw from the said account as and when required and also credited subsidies of LPG Gas connection and the petitioner deposited one cheque being no.000007 over the cash counter on 11.10.2021 for encashment but the same was returned to the petitioner with statement that the petitioner’s account has been blocked and the petitioner several times requested to the op no.1 authority to unblocked the said account but the op no.1 Bank till date did not unblocked the said account.
The O.P bank authority, on the contrary states that a deed bearing no.03197/1985 was registered in the office of the ADSR, Chinsurah on 29.7.1985 and recorded in Bookno.1, Volume no.56 page from 6 to 11 for the year 1985 is lying with the O.P bank as mortgage in connection with loan account no.02200500027104 in which the complainant of this instant complaint case is a borrower as a chairman of the VIP Cooperative Labour Contract and Construction society Ltd. The said deed of sale was executed in favour of Tarak Nath Mukhopadhyay, s/o Late Satish Chandra Mukhopadhyay resident of Manashpur Basti, P.O-Bandel, P.S-Chinsurah, Dist-Hooghly having an area of 03 cottah 01 chittak 13 square feet and 0.051 acre of land situated at Mouza: Keota, J.L no-7 R.S Plot no.5257 L.R. plot no1139 under L.R Khatian no.943/1 under Bandel Gram Panchayet. The owner of the property was Tarak Nath Mukhopadhyay who is the guarantor of the said loan account being no.02200500027104. The loan has been granted to VIP cooperative Labour Contract and Construction Society Ltd. wherein the complainant Rajendra Kumar Singh happens to be the Chairman of the said society and is the borrower of the said loan account. One paresh Chandra Mondal is the secretary of the society. The said loan account has been declared NPA. The loan account has become irregular and several attempts has been taken by the bank to recover the said loan amount from the complainant as a Chairman of the said society, the complainant herein but all efforts are in vain.
It came to the notice of the bank that the complainant of this case and the secretary of VIP society, namely Paresh Chandra Pal in collusion with the guarantor cum owner of the mortage property, namely Tarak Nath Mukhoadhyay sold out the mortgaged property to Mukesh Mali and Radha Debi Mali by virtue of a deed of sale being no.03853/2007 registered in the office of the ADSR, Hooghly and recorded in Book no.1, CD volume no.5 pages from 3062 to 3075 for the year 2007 without taking any consent from the op. It is a fraudulent execution of Deed of transfer during the mortgage containing a false statement of consideration. The chairman, the complainant herein is jointly equally and severally liable for the fraudulent execution of the mortgage property wherein the public money is involved. The op is a nationalized institution and as the public money is involved the complainant though have another savings account with the UCO bank, Bandel branch cannot be a bona fide customer as because as per policy of RBI and under the provision of Right to Set Off the Bank will freeze all other accounts of a defaulter lying with the bank to recover the outstanding amount. A set off clause is a legal clause that gives a lender the authority to seize a debtor’s deposits when they default on a loan. It is a fact that a cheque has been deposited on 11.10.2021 for encashment as the account of Rajendra Kumar Singha has been blocked as he is also an account holder as well as defaulter of the same branch of a NPA loan account as stated above. The complainant cheated and grab the public money and taking the advantage of the Consumer Laws is trying to distort the fact making false allegations of deficiency in service in his savings account. The NPA account holders are listed in the operating system and therefore this savings account is blocked until and unless the outstanding dues are not repaid as the public money at large are involved and as the complainant is a defaulter his savings account will not unlocked. A complaint in this regard has also been made before the Chinsurah P.S. on 12.2.2018 stating the facts by the bank. The amount is still outstanding against the complainant and several attempts has been made to recover the public money from the complainant and the savings account has been freezed/ blocked as per the provisions of Right to set off. The bank authority has filed some documents as per firisti in support of their case where from it appears that the account of the present petitioner has been declared as NPA.
After scrutinizing the entire record along with all the documents this commission can not but hold that suit is liable to be dismissed.
Hence
ordered
that the complaint case no. 142of 2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest against O.P 1 and dismissed ex parte against O.P 2.
No order is passed as to cost.
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 following website www.confonet.nic.in.
