West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/35/2014

Sri Dilip Kumar Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jan 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.35/2014                                                         Date of disposal: 20/01/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  XXXXXXXXXXXX.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S.K. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                       : Mr. B.K. Raj, Advocate.                                   

          

 Sri Dilip Kumar Jain, S/O late Birendra Nath Jain, at Mahammadpur, P.O. Belda, P.S. Belda, Dist-   

 Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1)The Br. Manager, State Bank of India, Belda Branch, At Belda, P.O. Belda,  Dist- Paschim Medinipur.

2)The Regional  Manager, State Bank of India, Medinipur Branch, P.O. Medinipur, Dist- Paschim Medinipur..……………Ops.

         The case of the complainant Sri Dilip Kumar Jain, in short, is that his father Birendra Nath Jain, proprietor of M/S Mahabir Milling Centre, Belda, Paschim Medinipur died in 2006.  During life time, he took C.C. Loan from the Op S.B.I. Bank, Belda Branch and after his death the loan A/C was transferred under the proprietorship of the complainant having its new account No. C/B 11604365896 in 2007.  As per Bank statement the outstanding dues was Rs.94,467.87/- as on 15/11/2007.  The Op Bank proposed for settlement on compromise by issuing a letter dated 23/10/2009 and dated 6/04/2010 which the complainant was agreed to.  Accordingly, it was settled that the complainant is at liberty to pay either Rs.78,000/- at a time or Rs.82,000/- by way of three months installment consecutively.  In this case, the complainant stated that he paid Rs 5,000/-on 22/05/2010, Rs.40,000/- on 23/06/2010 and Rs.37,000/- on 30/07/2010.  Thereafter, the complainant moves for getting return of all deeds and documents but was refused by the Op, on the plea of further payment of Rs.14,233.87/- on account of rest amount of outstanding dues payable by the complainant.  A notice dated 10/06/2012 to that effect was served upon the complainant. Under the circumstances, the complainant requested the Op to ignore the said notice and to give return of those

Contd…………..P/2

 

- ( 2 ) –

 mortgaged documents.  But the OP refused to do so. Finding no alternative, the complainant has come before us with the documentary evidence of payment receipts of Rs.82,000/-.  

         The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action.  The loan transaction was held between the parties for the purpose of commercial interest.  The Op, in this connection, admitted their acceptance of Rs.82,000/- it was  duly settled that the said sum of Rs.82,000/- was to be paid within 30/06/2010 in order to avail of 15% discount and Rs.86,611/- within 31/08/2013 for getting 10% discount, otherwise total outstanding Rs.96,233.87/- to be paid by 31/03/2011 without interest.  But the complainant failed to comply the terms and conditions of the scheduled scheme 2010. In the case of the complainant, the Op rather raised a claim of Rs .14,233.87/- plus accrued interest on date.  Thus, the complainant is not entitled to get relief as prayed for and the case is liable to be rejected.    

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1)Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

2)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

3)Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 3:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that admittedly there was a loan case and in accordance with the proposal for compromise raised by the Op, the complainant made entire payment.  But the documents in connection with the loan account lying with the Bank are not return to the complainant.  This is a clear case of deficiency of service and thereby necessary order with direction to the Op as prayed for may be passed. 

              Ld. Advocate appearing for the OP S.B.I raised strong objection and submitted that as per terms and condition of SBI, OTS, SME Scheme, 2010, the complainant was given opportunity but he failed to avail of the benefit of the same scheme by virtue of repayment of the entire outstanding dues Rs.96,233.87/- within the stipulated date.   In this connection, it is also referred by the Ld. Advocate that, there was no talk of compromise held between the parties.  Only the offer for repayment was given to the complainant giving opportunity to avail of sum benefits.  But the terms and conditions were not properly complied with.  So, the complainant

Contd…………..P/3

 

 

- ( 3 ) –

   should not get the said benefit.  In view of the facts and circumstances, there is no deficiency of    

   service on the part of the complainant. 

          We have carefully considered the case.  It appears that there is no dispute on the point of total amount of outstanding dues Rs.84,467.87/- as on 15/11/2007 payable by the complainant and out of the said amount, only Rs.82,000/- has been paid phase by phase within 30/07/2010.  In this connection, we do not find any documentary evidence on the point of mode of repayment with scheduled date towards the payment installments.  Thus, we do not find any bonafide reasonable ground to accept the plea of deficiency of service as raised against the Op here in this petition of complaint.  As a consequence of the findings, the case should fail.

          All the issues are held and decided against the complainant.

               Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is dismissed  on contest  without cost.

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

         President                                                    Member                                               President

                                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur.