West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/43/2013

Tarun Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

08 Jan 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.43/2013                                                        Date of disposal: 08/01/2014                               

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

                                                      MEMBER :  xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A. K. Dutta. Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. Santanu Das. Advocate.

          

Sri Tarun Patra, Son of Narayan Chandra Patra, Vill-Kulbahara, P.O.-Garhshonapata, P.S.-Keshpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur… …………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

   The Branch Manager, United Bank of India at Burapat, P.O.-Burapat, P.S.-Anandapur,    

                  District- Paschim Midnapore, Pin-721260……………………Op.                                                    

                  

                  This is a case arising out of an application filed by Sri Tarun Patra a registered unemployed young person has, under Government scheme, made a deposit of 54,000/- (Fifty four thousand) only before the Op-United Bank of India, Burapat and took loan of 3,50,000/-(three lakhs & fifty thousand) only on 30/3/2009 against security 1,00,000/- (One lakh) only on 31/3/2013.  The complainant contended that behind his knowledge, the Op-Bank procured two market plus policy of TATA AIG and thereby he suffered the probable loan of his money allegedly invested by the Op in the said policy. On 12/2/2013 the complainant claimed balance sheet from the Op-Bank but the same has not been supplied to him.  The complainant made further allegation that in respect of having knowledge that the complainant is a registered unemployed young man, the Op-Bank tactfully compelled the complainant in purchasing TATA AIG Market Plus policy.  Thus, the Op-Bank has adopted unfair means against the interest of the complainant.  Making the allegation the complainant prays for necessary order from this Forum so that he may get the balance sheet from the Op-Bank and also for making necessary adjustment of the loan account with the scheduled policies with its interest.  In this connection, the complainant also prays for harassment, cost etc.

     Contd…………….P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

                    The Op United Bank of India, Burapat Branch contested the case by filing W/O stating therein that the case should fail for want of non-joinder of necessary parties namely TATA AIG Insurance Company.  Apart from that, the case of the complainant is categorically denied, rather the Op disclosed in their W/O that the bank sanctioned loan of 4,50,000/- (Four lakhs & fifty thousand) only on 30/3/2009 on account of project cost and the complainant availed of the said loan under certain terms and conditions.  The complainant executed loan documents in favour of the Op bank and opened two fixed deposits being its no. RIP 1157100404213 and 1157100404214 each 60,000/- (Sixty thousand) only and thereby created lien against the balance sheet  of loan account no.BSKP/1157304713461 and the government subsidy of 1,00,000/- (one lakh) only was adjusted with the loan on 31/3/2009. Interest was calculated on the rest sum 3,50,000/- (three lakhs & fifty thousand) only and accordingly a D.P. note was executed by the complainant.  It is further stated by the Op bank in their W/O that the complainant was repeatedly asked for regularization of his loan account but he did not turn up even after being informed that an amount of 2,06,891/- (Two lakhs six thousand eight hundred ninety one) only already lies over due out of total outstanding debit balance to the extent of 3,87,891/-(three lakhs eighty seven thousand eight hundred ninety one) only with interest up to 31/5/2011.  In this connection, the Op-Bank served legal notice dated 25/3/2013 through their Ld. Advocate Niladri Chatterjee upon the complainant.  The entire matter of grievance was sent to the TATA AIG Insurance Company under due intimation to the complainant in his letter dated 25/10/2011 since the Op claims that the bank is not concerned with the TATA AIG Insurance Company with regard to the business policy in the matter of the complainant who on the other hand voluntarily applied for purchasing the policies of TATA AIG Life Insurance Company.  There is no occasion to show that the Op-Bank willfully forced the complainant to purchase the said policy from TATA AIG Insurance Company.  In view of the matter so far as it relates to the conduct of the complainant, The TATA AIG Company along with its FSO Sri Bhargab Sahas Roy is necessary party in the interest of correct decision of this case. That apart, the case as it appears should not lie on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer under the relevant statute.  Thus the case should be dismissed with cost.

      

                  Upon the case of both parties the following issues are made for discussion in  arriving at a correct decision in the matter.

Issues :

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the definition of Consumer Protection Act ?
2. Whether the case is maintainable for want of cause of action.
3. If the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
4. Whether the Op. is liable for practicing unfair a deceptive method against the interest of the complainant?

Contd…………….P/3

- ( 3 ) -

 

5. Whether there is any deficiency in service as alleged against the Op-Bank.
6. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

 

Decision with reasons :

Issue No.1.                      

 

                  Ld. Advocate of the complainant made his argument that the complainant is an unemployed young person.  Government has recommended him for his scheme for running a motor workshop and granted security deposit for the purpose of loan account and accordingly the complainant tried to start his project.  But the Op rendered no effective assistance to the complainant.  Even the Op-Bank supplied no balance sheet relating to the adjustment of his deposit.   On the contrary his policies were subjected to adjustment of the loan account after filing of this case.  Ld. Advocate further argued that for the purpose of project, the complainant deposited  the required sum. Even so, the Op-Bank did not release the payment of sanctioned loan in favour of the complainant.  In this connection, there is a clear decision reported in 2012(3) CPR 222 (NC) that the bank cannot withhold the payment for loan even after it’s sanctioned in favour of the complainant.  Under such circumstances withholding of the sanctioned loan without any bona fide cause amounts to deficiency in service against the Op-Bank.

                 

                 Ld. Advocate appearing for the Op-Bank very initially made a drastic challenge through  his submission that this case is not maintainable in the eye of law mainly on the ground that the complainant does not fall under the definition of the Consumer Protection Act.  Loan taken for commercial gain denies the right to move before the Forum.  Herein this case the complainant wanted to run a motor workshop which does not come within the purview of the said act.  Secondly, the complainant raised a specific case that he was compelled to purchase policy from TATA AIG Insurance Company.  So, in absence of the said Insurance Company it would not be lawful for taking any decision against the present Op United Bank of India.  Lastly, the balance sheet has already been tendered before the complainant.  Through the submission, Ld. Advocate gave emphasis for dismissal of the case.

    

                 Having considered the submission of Ld. Advocates in respect of disputed case of the parties together with the documents on record admitted by the parties vice versa, it appears that this is the case of the complainant who was for loan for the purpose of his scheme to organize the motor workshop for commercial purpose.  Secondly, this is a specific case that the complainant was tact

Contd…………….P/4

 

- ( 4 ) -

 

fully compelled by the Op bank in purchasing policies from TATA AIG Insurance Company which attracts the alleged case of unfair means of trade policy against the Op bank.  Under such fact and circumstances we are in the opinion that in absence of TATA AIG Insurance Company the allegation made by the complainant should not be decided.  Similarly, the question of allegation towards unfair trade practice cannot be decided without considering the say of the TATA AIG Insurance Co.

            

                 Besides, the purpose of the complainant in taking loan, we cannot disregard the defination of the Consumer Protection Act so far as it relates to the specific admission of the complainant that he is under the scheme of commercial purpose.

            

                 Upon the discussion made herein above, it is held and decided that the case of the complainant has no merit for securing favourable order and thereby the case should be dismissed.

                                         Hence

                                                     It is ordered

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

  

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                                             Member                                                President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                           Paschim Medinipur.