In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Murshidabad

Berhampore, Murshidabad.

Case No. C.C/79 /2015

Date of filing: 23/06/2015                                                                                                 Date of Final Order: 16/08/2016

Hare Krishna Mondal.

S/O-  Lt. Mahananda Mondal. Of Vill.- Sahanagar.

 P.O.+P.S.+ Dist.—Murshidabad.

Dist- Murshidabad, PIN-742149 (W.B.)          ……………………………...   Complainant                          

                                                          - Vs-

 The Branch Manager,

 State Bank of India. Lalbagh Branch.

 P.O.+P.S.+ Dist.—Murshidabad .                                        ………….….………… Opposite Party

Mr.Shib Sankar Das. Ld. Adv..………………………………. for the complainant

            Mr.Satinath Chandra. Ld. Advocate………………………..for the Opposite Party.

                                              Before:   Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.

                                                              Hon’ble Member, Pranati Ali.

FINAL ORDER

Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Member. 

              This case has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for a direction upon the OP to check every transaction thoroughly and prepared justified proper statements and return excess deposit amount to the complainant with compensation.

            The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is an account holder vide A/C No. CC 01660060180 in the name of M/S Mani Sovan under the OP bank. The complainant took a CC loan from the OP Bank in 1999 in limit of Rs.45,000/-.and the loan account was operated smoothly by the complainant till 2005. He was not a defaulter in respect of the loan account. But his CC loan was stopped on 30.03.2005 by payment of all credit amounts and after on long period 30.12.14 the OP Bank sent a letter demanding Rs.11, 428.62 as due amounts on the said loan. The complainant deposited the said amount of Rs. 11,429/- on 20.01.15 and after a few days the OP further demanded a sum of Rs.24, 629/- on the said account. Previously, the complainant deposited excess amount of Rs.11, 216.10 on 30.03.05 and Rs.11, 429/- on 30.01.15 and in total he paid Rs.23, 216.10. The OP is bound to refund the excess amount paid by the complainant. The complainant lodged complaint in writing and verbally requested to prepare stament by actual transaction but the OP take no necessary steps and has been creating pressure for unjustified demand. Many a times the complainant requested the OP to solve the problem but the OP paid no heed to his request. Finding no other alternative, the complainant came before this Forum by filing this case for relief. Hence, the instant complaint.

            The OP denied all the allegations as raised by the complainant in different paragraphs of his complaint. The specific case of the OP, in short, is that complainant has taken financial assistance as working capital for carrying and running of his business in the name of M/S Mani Sovan by the way of Cash Credit Loan. The complainant has failed to operate the said CCL account as per banking norms. The Bank requested him to maintain the said amount in order by payment of interest and other applicable charges amounting to Rs.11, 428.62 to make the account regular. The complainant never closed the account by paying entire outstanding dues to the Bank. So, the bank will charge interest and other applicable charges upon the said account until and unless the same shall be closed by the complainant by payment of entire outstanding balance. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The case is liable to be rejected.  

                        The complainant filed evidence on affidavit in which he assailed that he run his C.C.Loan A/C till 2005 properly and paid all dues on 30.03.2005 then he could not operate the account regularly. But the bank by sending a notice on 30.12.2004 demanded a sum of Rs.11,428.62 and this complainant  meet the demand on 20.1.2015 which is out of his expectation. Then the complainant received another notice of OP demanding a sum of Rs.24,629/- which is not reasonable. He further assailed that he deposited a sum of Rs.11,216/- & Rs.11,429/- as per demand of the OP and he is entitled to get  return a sum of Rs.23,216/- from this OP. He filed complaint several times to get the amount return but the OP did not pay any heed at the utterance of this complainant for which he compelled to file this complaint before this Forum for redressal.

               In the written argument the agent of the complainant assailed that he stopped the account in question after paying all dues. Thereafter he paid a sum of Rs.11,429/- as per demand of the OP after a long period. This OP further claimed a sum of Rs.24,629/- from this complainant so the complainant filed complaint in that regard but no steps taken by the OP except charging excess amount from this complainant. The complainant tried to adjust with OP by paying legal amount but the OP denied adjustment by reducing the unjustified amount for which the complainant filed the instant complaint before this Forum for redressal.

              The agent of the OP advanced argument and filed a few documents in support of his claim resisting the demand of the complainant.  By procuring a letter dated 20.03.2015 the OP informed this complainant that a sum of Rs. 29335/- is total dues as on 11.03.2015 and requested this complainant to pay within 15 days from the receipt of this notice to avoid necessary action by the OP bank. He also filed statement of account up to 11.03.2015 & a case reference of National Commission.

          From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

  1).Whether the Complainant ‘Hare Krishna Mondal’ is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?

2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3).Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

   In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

1. Whether the Complainant ‘Hare Krishna Mondal’ is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

     From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant being a Customer obtained Cash Credit Loan from the OP and it is admitted by the OP so he is a consumer of the OP as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. 

     (2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

                Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Murshidabad. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.        

    (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

             The case of the complainant is that he was maintaining a cash credit account before the OP since a long back and operating the said account regularly till 2005. He received a letter from the OP bank dated 30.12.2014 in which the OP bank stated that the captioned loan account turned NPA since 12.03.2008 as per RBI guidelines and the present outstanding is Rs.11428.62 plus interest as applicable. So the OP requested to regularize the account within 15 days from the receipt of notice in default the case will be identified as willful defaulter in the list of RBI. Then the complainant paid a sum of Rs.11,429/- to close the said account but the account was not closed for nonpayment of interest.

        After perusing the documents procured by the OP it appears that total dues as on 11.3.2008 is Rs.14216.62 date of NPA 12.3.2008, notional interest & account keeping charges, less repayment ( from 12.3.2008 to 11.3.2015) is Rs.15118.38. So the total dues as on 11.3.2015 is Rs.29,335.00. The statement of account sheet-2 speaks that balance is Rs.9828.62 dated nil and including the interest & ACC keeping charges it reaches to Rs.14216.62 as on 29.2.2008. Thereafter including notional interest & ACC keeping charges the dues reaches to Rs.16729.00 as on 11.3.2009, total dues is Rs 19588.00 as on 11.3.2010, total dues is Rs 22842.00 as on 11.3.2011, total dues is Rs 26545.00 as on 11.3.2012, total dues is Rs 30759.00 as on 11.3.2013, total dues is Rs 35555.00 as on 11.3.2014, total dues is Rs 39600.00 as on 20.01.2015 and after deducting the deposited money Rs.11,429.00 it converted to Rs.28171.00, total dues reaches to Rs. 29335.00 as on 11.3.2015.

               The cash credit account of the complainant was non functional for more than 10yrs and it converted to NPA on 12.3.2008 thereafter when the dues converted to a handsome amount of Rs.29335.000 then the OP bank by a letter dated 20.3.2015 informed the complainant regarding his dues and in default he will face the consequences. The OP also sent a letter dated 30.12.2014 demanding Rs.11428.62 plus interest as applicable and 15 days time given for repayment in default action against the complainant. In responding to the letter of this OP the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.11429.00 on 20.01.2015. Thereafter the OP sent another letter dated 20.03.2015 in which he stated the total dues Rs.29335.00 as on 11.03.2015.

               After a careful observation of statement of OP bank this complainant paid principal with interest of loan amount. But it is difficult to meet such demand of bank regarding excess notional interest & ACC keeping charges. The bank is giving loan to the persons for the development of his business but the mode in which they are collecting dues from the loanee is like private sector banks or financial institutions. The complainant ignored the meagre amount of dues but he could not assess what it may be after a prolonged time in a public sector bank.

         The agent on behalf of OP by referring a Judgement of Hon’ble National Commission assailed that this complainant is not a consumer as envisaged under Sec.2(1) (d) of the consumer Protection Act,1986 as he is maintaining cash credit account for his business which attracts the clause, “Commercial Purpose”. So the complaint is liable to be rejected with cost.

But the said decision is applicable in case of current account.

           So we are in a considered opinion that the bank has collected sufficient money from his loanee and no further dues can be collected from this complainant. The OP is directed to close the disputed account of this complainant to prevent the never ending collection of notional interest & ACC keeping charges within 15 days from the date of receiving this order.

   4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

            The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant could not able to prove the deficiency of this OP, so the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation for deficiency of service.

              Hence it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed in part on contest with no order as to cost against the Opposite party.

            The OP is directed to close the disputed account of this complainant to prevent the never ending collection of notional interest & ACC keeping charges within 15 days from the date of receiving this order.  The OP is also restrained to collect the dues in the cash credit account of this complainant.

 No other reliefs are awarded to the complainant.

             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 forthwith, for information & necessary action.

           Dictated and corrected by me.

                  Member,                                                                                        President-in- Charge.