Judgement

Due to the prolonged harassment  from the concerned bank authority the complainant became traumatized, facing mental agony,mental disturbance in his professional field and unable to consider jobs abroad and also in other state.This has caused the complainant severe financial losses and hurdle in career growth as a Doctor by profession,.   

Being aggrieved the activities of the OP, complainant approached the commission by way of consumer complaint. 

  OP contested the case by filing WV in their WV contending interalia that the Complaint is not maintainable both in facts and in law.The Complaint case is false,motivated,concoted,harrasive.The complainant have no cause of action to file the instant complainant and is otherwise time barred.OP further stated that one Pradeep singh ,working in Eastern Railways Salkia,Howrah availed the loan of Rs-4,50,000/ in June 2011,inter-alia against repayment in 48 equated monthly instalments of Rs.12,500/.However after the initial service of loan, the said loan was classified Non-Performing Asset by the OP in the year 30.09.2011.The said loan remains due and payable  by the said Pradeep Singh till date.Further,OP stated that for the loan which was alleged not have been availed by the complainant from the Bank a “NO Due Certificate “ has been coerced from OP and the same have been received by the complainant, suggesting the motivated and illegal nature of the complainant. It was also stated by the OP that the complainant has not provided with requisitioned details regarding the alleged complaint of debit of Rs,95,000/- from the salary account. The complainant never disclosed his true identity till date either in the form of KYC or self declaration. in this regard the OP can not be held liable to any amount whatsoever as compensation to the complainant.    

Points for Determination

On the pleading of parties the following points have necessarily come up for determination.

1. Whether the OPs have got deficiency in service.
2. Whether the OPs are indulging unfair trade practice.
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief/reliefs as prayed for.

Decision with Reasons

Points Nos. 1 to 3 :-

All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.

Complainant and the OP have tendered their Evidence on Affidavit. Both have replied to the questionnaire set forth by their adversaries. Both have submitted their

BNAs also.As per the documents annexed by the complainant with the complaint petition .

We have travelled over all the documents placed on record.Facts remain that Dr. Pradeep Singh applied home loan from LIC which was rejected on the grounds of purported SBI Loan in his name.The complainant contacted immediately the said SBI branch regarding his false loan in his name and accordingly he wrote letter dated 16.12.2013 for further quarries of the loan account no.31792671817.The complainant received reply.The said bank issued no dues certificate in favour of the complainant and confirmed that the present complainant has never availed any personal loan.The OP bank intrigued that for the alleged loan which was not availed by the complainant from the OP “ No Due Certificate” had been coerced. But the complainant placed the document in connection with the No dues certificate was issued from the concerned bank and it was issued the then Branch Manager of the Bank.In the same letter dated 24.12.2013 the OP bank admitted that the complainant’s PAN Card No. AYJPS7032F is the same as that of one of their borrower Shri Pradeep Singh S/o Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh.It was also revealed from the Income Tax website that the PAN No.AYJPS7032F submitted by Shri Pradeep Singh while availing the personal loan of Rs 4.50 Lacs may not be genuine as the same PAN No. allotted to the complainant. Further, stated in the letter that the bank have sent a notice to CIBIL site to suppress/delete the name of the complainant against the personal loan of Rs.4.50 lacs as the details pertaining to the loan does not match with the complainant’s date of birth,residential address and contact no. This letter as a evidence establishes the complainant’s intention.

Now let us examine some questionnaire of the OP and the answers of the complainant

Question NO.3 :- Whether the residential address of the complainant is 19/20,Gopal Ghosh Road,Salkia,Howrah-711106

REPLY No.5:- This is not the subject matter of the case.

Question NO.11:- The complainant was asked whether the alleged letters dated.07.12.2015 was received at the address 16/20,Gopal Ghosh Road,Salkia Howrah-711106?

REPLY No.13:- This is not a relevant question.

Question NO.17:- The complainant was asked whether the complainant has disclosed before this Ld.Forum the authenticated and certified messages as per The Indian Evidence Act,1872.

REPLY No.19:- There is no necessity for authentication of certificate because you did not challange the said electronic message.

As  per the Q.No.3 regarding the residential address of the complainant as mentioned in cause title is different.It is mentioned by the complainant that though their parents are the residents of the salkia Howrah but his (complainant) all the documents ID proof recorded in the address as per the cause title of the complaint petition.

As per the Q.No 11 whether the alleged letters received at 16/20,Gopal Ghosh Road,Salkia Howrah-711106? The complainant replied that this question is relevant as he may received from his parental home.This question does not establishes that the actual subject matter.

Now, if we go through the documents submitted by the OP we find that...

Arrangement Letter dated 17.06.2011 Pradeep Singh,20 Fern Road,Kolkata 700019

Xpress Credit Agreement17.06.2011 Pradeep Singh,20 Fern Road,Kolkata 700019

Standing instruction   Pradeep Singh,20 Fern Road,Kolkata 700019

Registered letter with A/D Pradeep Singh,20 Fern Road,Kolkata 700019

From the documents annexed regarding issuing of the loan amount of Rs.4.50 lacs by the OP bank is clearly evident that all the address mentioned is  different as in the letters issued. The loan alleged to have been disbursed by the OP to whom there is no exact proof or documental evidence to show that OP Bank have sanctioned the loan. No ID proof of the customer. It also fails to establish that exactly which Pradeep Singh availed the loan.

Further,in the letter dated 07.12.2015 the OP bank admitted that they had removed the hold from the saving bank account of the complainant on 18.09.2015.OP also assured that they have already taken suitable measures to nab the culprits.

. We apprehend  that it might be a deliberate attempt on the part of the OP Bank to grab the innocent customers in an illegal way by creating pressure on him. We also apprehend that in some cases they might have been successful in grabbing the hard earned money of their customers specially those customers who are not able to reach to the commission. The OP has miserably failed to prove their claim. It is absolutely a fake and fictitious demand of the OP.

In the light  of the above observations, we are of the opinion that the complainants have established the case against the OP.

All the points under determination are answered accordingly.

In the result, the Consumer Complaint  succeeds..

Hence,

                                                                        Ordered

That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP with the following directions.

1.  OP is directed to resolve the dispute of the complainant as full and final .
2. OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for creating harassment and mental agony.
3.  OP also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost.

The above order is to be complied by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of this order. In default, the complainant will be at liberty to put the order into execution.

Copy of the judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost as per the C.P. Act and Judgment be uploaded in the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.