25.....11.05.2021.....
Today is fixed for delivery of judgment/final order.
Final order contains 4 pages is ready . It is sealed, signed and delivered in open Forum/Commission.
It is ordered that,
ORDERED
That the case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the O.P. without cost.
Let copies of final order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.
The Final order also be made available in www.confonet.nic.in .
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SOUTH 24-PARGANAS
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C. NO. 84 OF 2019
DATE OF FILING DATE OF ADMISSION DATE OF FINAL ORDER
20.06.2019 09.07.2019 11.05.2021
Present : President : Asish Kumar Senapati
Member : Sangita Paul
COMPLAINANT : Phanibushan Halder, S/o – Tulshi Halder, Residing at Village + P.O. + P.S. – Raydighi, Dist. – South 24 Parganas, Pin - 743383.
Versus
O.P/O.Ps : The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Raydighi Branch, Raydighi Gram Panchayet Bhawan, Village + P.O. + P.S. – Raydighi, Dist. – South 24 Parganas, Pin – 743383.
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
This is a consumer complaint under section 12, C.P. Act, 1986.
One Phanibushan Halder (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed the case against the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Raydighi Branch (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.), praying for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 40,000/- alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint is as follows:
The complainant took a term loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- by mortgaging his dwelling house from the O.P. on 31.10.2009 on condition to repay the loan amount with interest by 84 installments with a sum of Rs. 10,769/- per month. The complainant regularly paid the installment. But the O.P. debited a sum of Rs. 23,000/- on 29.08.2016 even after repaying after 84 installments and thereafter on 05.05.2017 the O.P. debited an another sum of Rs. 12,489/- and informed the complainant that he will have to pay a further sum of Rs. 1,15,842/- in order to close the loan account.
Finding no other alternative way, the complainant approached the Office of the Assistant Director Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, South 24 Parganas. But the problem could not be solved in mediation process. The cause of action arose on and from 29.08.2016. Hence, the complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and refund of Rs. 35,00,489/- and cost of Rs. 40,000/-.
The O.P. put its appearance and contesting the case by filing W.V. on 02.01.2020 contending that the petitioner took the loan from the O.P. on 31.10.2009. But he did not pay the total amount of the interest according to norms of the bank and amount of Rs. 1,15,842/- is remaining due upto date interest. It is stated that the complainant assured to make payment at the time of mediation process before the Office of the Assistant Director Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, South 24 Parganas. But in vein. The complainant took the loan for his hotel business and the claim of the complainant has no merit. The O.P. has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
On the basis of the above versions, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :-
- Is the complainant a consumer under the provisions of C.P Act?
- Has the complainant cause of action to file the case?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
- Are the complainants entitled to get an order against the O.Ps, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point nos. 1:-
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the complainant is a consumer as he took the loan and take the entire loan as per agreement. The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. has not taken part into hearing of argument. We have gone through the written complaints, written versions, evidences and documents submitted by both parties. It appears from the letter of arrangement dated 31.10.2009 executed by both parties. We find that the complainant took the term loan limit Rs. 6,00,000/- and the complainant took the loan as Prop. of “Adyasakti Hindu Hotel”. As per the said agreement the interest @ 1.5% above/ State Bank Advance Rate (SBAR) (SBAR=11.75% w.e.f. 29.06.2009) with a minimum of 13.25% p.a. rising or falling therewith, on daily products with monthly rests. Present effective rate : 13.25% p.a. Wherever expedient, interest rate is directly linked to the Credit Risk Assessment of the borrower.
Accrued but unapplied interest, if any, shall be governed by RBI’s directives on IRAC norms. Interest rates on facilities extended in foreign currency shall be linked to LIBOR rates.
Application of interest in respect of Agricultural Advances shall be in line with the harvesting seasons.
Enhanced Interest:
- Enhanced rate of interest at 1% cumulatively subject to a maximum of 2% will be charged for the period of delay in respect of.
- Delayed / non-submission of financial date required for review /renewal of limits.
- Delayed / non-submission of annual financial statements.
- Delayed / non-submission of stock statements.
- Enhanced rate will be charged on the excess drawings in case any irregularity / breach is continuously less than 60 days, and if it exceeds beyond 60 days, on the entire outstandings from the date of irregularity / breach. Enhanced interest will be compounded monthly.
- The Bank shall also be entitled to charge at its discretion, enhanced interest rates on the accounts either on the entire outstandings or on a portion thereof, for any irregularity including non-observance or non-compliance of the Terms and Conditions of the advances, for such period as the Bank deems it necessary.
We find that the complainant took the term loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- from
O.P. on terms and conditions and he took the loan as Prop. “Adya Shakti Hindu Hotel”. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant took the loan for commercial purpose. So we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is not a consumer as he took the loan for commercial purpose.
Point Nos. 2 & 3:
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the complainant paid the total 84 installments as per agreement. But the O.P. debited Rs. 35,489/- from his account and also claimed Rs 1,15,842/- as the amount. He submits that the O.P. has deficiency in service. The Ld. Advocate has not taken part in BNA of argument. We already hold that the complainant is not a consumer. Therefore, we are not inclined to go to the detailed discussion in point 2 and 3.
In our considered opinion, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the O.P. without cost.
Let copies of final order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.
The Final order also be made available in www.confonet.nic.in .
Dictated and corrected by me
