Judgment & Order dt. 27.03.2017
Gist fact of the case is that the complainants purchased a tractor from the OP No. 2 with financial assistance from the OP No. 1 for cultivation of their own land and maintenance their livelihood. The complainants approached to the OP No. 2 who is the dealer of New Holland Company and he convinced them to buy the tractor of that brand and he assured that he had a good relation with Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, Balurghat Branch and assists them to get the loan for the purpose of purchase of the tractor. The OP No. 1 sanctioned Rs.5,00,000/- as loan towards purchase of the said tractor and the complainants themselves contributed Rs.1,55,990/- as down payment. Accordingly, they purchased the tractor being Registration No. WB-61A/2028 with the financial help from the OP No. 1 and a loan A/c being No. 607100AU00000417 was opened in the name of the complainants. It is alleged by the complainants that the said tractor worked satisfactorily for some couple of months and thereafter the tractor off and on got defective and due to non-availability of spare parts of the said tractor and dissatisfactory post sales service on the part of OP No. 2, the complainants could not run the tractor properly and thereby suffered a loss and as a result of which the complainants failed to pay EMI regularly on time to the OP Bank consequent to that OP Bank issued a notice to the complainants on 23.7.2015, which was marked as Ext.2, directing them to pay the arrear EMIs along with interest accrued thereon and requested them to pay 2,17,409/- (additional amount payable by 10.8.2015) but the complainants failed to pay the same. As the loan A/c had been declared NPA the OP No.1 referred the matter to the Lok Adalat for realizing the loan amount and settle the disputes and D.L.S.A. Dakshin Dinajpur issued a notice to the complainants to appear before the Lok Adalat to be held on 12.12.2015 at Balurghat Court premises vide Pre Litigation Case No. 2478/2015, in which loan amount was shown as Rs.6,45,077/- which was marked as Ext.2/1. It is the allegation of the complainants that they attended the said Lok Adalat and the loan amount was settled at Rs.2,17,409/- in presence of the Bank and Bank authority told that they would settle the matter at the above noted amount provided the complainants pay Rs.12,000/- instantly and the complainants thereafter rushed to Hili for arrangement of the said amount but when returned at Balurghat they found that the session of the said Lok Adalat was over. The complainants thereafter went to the OP Bank several times to deposit the said amount and settle the dispute at the aforesaid amount but the Bank authority declined to receive the same and settle the matter and claimed the outstanding loan in full loan amount. The complainants, however, failed to produce any evidence regarding the settlement at Rs.2,17,409/-.
The complainants thereafter applied before the D.L.S.A. for taking the case on the next Lok Adalat which was scheduled to be held on 23.6.2016 but the OP Bank did not appear. OP Bank further served a notice to the complainants dt. 5.5.2016 which was marked as Ext.2/2 and demanded Rs.5,90,633/-. Again the complainants failed to pay the same. The complainants alleged misbehaviour of the OP Bank and stick to settle the matter at Rs.2,17,409/- but the OP Bank declined to settle the same and finding no other alternative the complainants filed this case for getting redress from the Forum and prayed for settlement of the loan amount at Rs. 2,17,409/- which will be paid by installment and other reliefs as prayed in the complaint petition.
OP Bank appeared before this Forum and filed a written statement on 4.11.2016 in which they denied all the material allegations of the complainants excepting the fact that the Bank authority issued loan to the complainants for purchasing the tractor but the complainant failed to pay the EMI on regular basis and they are entitled to recover the loan amount as per the banking norms.
The OP No. 2 though appeared before this Forum, but subsequently due to his non-appearance the case was proceeded ex-parte against him.
The complainant namely Bisweswar Sarkar was examined as PW-1 and he deposed on behalf of all the complainants and in his deposition he mostly corroborated the complaint petition and submitted the documents as per the annexure which have been marked as exhibited documents. None appeared on behalf of OP No. 1 on 23.3.2017 and therefore the case was proceeded ex-parte against OP No. 1 also.
From the complaint petition, w/v filed by OP No. 1 and the materials on record the following points have been framed.
- Whether the complainants are consumers or not?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of OPs or not?
- Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief from this Forum or not?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
It is the case of the complainants that they purchased a tractor as aforesaid with the financial assistance from the O.P bank and subsequent to the purchase of the tractor it went defective and as a result of that the complainants failed to repay the loan regularly.
The O.P Bank issued a notice to the complainants on 23.07.2015, marked as Ext. No.2, directing them to pay the arrear EMIs along with interest accrued thereon and requested them to pay Rs.2,17,409/- (Additional amount payable by 10.08.2015) but the complainants failed to pay the same. The loan account as stated above was declared as NPA by the OP Bank and the OP Bank referred the matter to the Lok Adalat for realizing the loan amount and settlement of the disputes and accordingly the D.L.S.A., Dakshin Dinajpur issued a notice to the complainants to appear before it on 12.12.2015 at Balurghat Court premises vide Pre-litigation Case No: 2478/2015. In the notice supplied b y the Lok Adalat the loan amount was shown as Rs. 6,45,077/- which is marked as Ext.2/1.
It is the allegation of the complainants that they attended the said Lok Adalat and the loan amount was settled at Rs.2,17,409/- in presence of the bank and the bank authority told that they would settle the matter at the above noted amount provided the complainants pay Rs.12,000/- instantly and thereafter the complainants rushed to Hili for arrangement of the said amount but when they returned to Balurghat, they found that the session of the said Lok Adalat was over and he alleged deficiency of service on the part of the O.P bank as subsequent to the date of Lok Adalat, the O.P Bank refused to take any money from the complainant and settle the dispute.
One of the complainants namely Bisweswar Sarkar stood as P.W-1 and he deposed for all the complainants and he stated in his evidence that the total price of the tractor was fixed at Rs. 5 lakh. He paid Rs.1,55,990/- to the O.P No. 2 and the remaining was sanctioned as loan by the O.P No.1. The tractor was delivered to the complainants and the complainants used to run the same for about 6 months but thereafter the said tractor got defective and so he could not repay the loan amount.
He got the notice of D.L.S.A. as stated above and appeared before the Lok Adalat on 12.12.2015 and he stated that the Branch Manager claimed Rs.2,17,409/- by a notice and was willing to settle the dispute at the aforesaid amount and the O.P No.1 demanded Rs.12,000/- to be deposited instantly and the complainants rushed to Hili for arrangement of the same but when returned he saw that the Lok Adalat was over. It is the allegation of P.W-1 that subsequent to that, the O.P No.1 refused to accept the said amount and settle the dispute at the aforesaid amount.
Though the complainant said all these facts but he failed to adduce any evidence on the point that the O.P bank was about to settle the disputed loan at Rs.2,17,409/- or settled the loan at the afore noted amount. He also failed to produce any single scrap of paper by which it can be deduced that the loan amount was settled at the compromised amount by the Lok Adalat or by the OP Bank.
Further, when any person was granted bank loan he definitely becomes a consumer of the Bank and in terms of the Sec.(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986. But here in this case, we do not find any deficient service on the part of the bank. The OP Bank sanctioned loan to the Complainants and it is their right to recover the same by way of banking norms. A bank is not negligent or deficient on account of failure to pay arrear loan amount by the consumers. Hence, we are in the opinion that the OP Bank is not negligent or had any deficiency in service and accordingly the complainants are not entitled to get any relief from this Forum. On the other hand, it appears that it is the complainants who are found to be deficient in service towards the OP Bank by not paying the loan amount in terms of their agreement reached between them.
All the above points have been therefore discussed.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
that the case be and the same is dismissed ex-parte without costs.
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
