West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/84/2017

Sri Gour Chandra Chatterjee - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Swapan Bhattacharya

22 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

     Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and 

Sagarika Sarkar, Member. 

 

Complaint Case No.84/2017

 

             Sri Gour Chandra Chatterjee, Proprietor of Chatterjee Enterprise, residing at & P.O.

             Ramjibanpur, P.S. Chandrakone, District - Paschim Medinipur.   

                                                                                                                    ………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1. The Branch Manager, United Commercial Bank, Ramjibanpur Branch, at & P.O. Ramjibanpur, P.S. Chandrakona, District- Paschim Medinipur,
2. The Divisional Head, United Commercial Bank, Division Office. At Uttar Para, Dist-Hooghly.

                                                                                                 .....……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Swapan Bhattacherjee, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate.

                                                 

 

Decided on: - 22 /11/2017

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President –This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Sri Ranjit Jana against the above named O.Ps, alleging deficiency in service on their part.

                 Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows

                 Complainant is a reputed businessman and he runs his business in the name and style as Chatterjee Enterprise.  Complainant used to maintain all business transaction with the O.P.-United Commercial Bank, Ramjibanpur Branch.  O.P.- Bank

                                                                                                                                                 Contd…………….P/2

 

 

                                                                                        ( 2 )

sanctioned four loans in favour of the complainant vide loan A/C nos. 04340510000656, 04340610011577, 04340510000069 & 04340610014509.  Complainant is also an authorized dealership of Lafarge Cement Co. and he maintains his business transaction with the said Co. through RTGS from the O.P.-Bank.  On 18.11.2016, the complainant went to the O.P.-bank to pay a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- only to Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. through NEFT.  As per advice of the O.P. no.1, the complainant deposited the said sum of Rs.2,80,000/- in his current A/C and filled up NEFT form in details.  The O.P. no.1 duly received the amount and issued NEFT serial number SAA82755728.  Thereafter the complainant went outside the bank and sometimes thereafter he returned back to the bank’s counter and came to know that as per direction of O.P. no.1, the said sum of Rs.2,80,000/- has been adjusted in the loan A/C of the complainant illegally.  Complainant became very much astonished and requested O.P. no.1 to rectify his illegal act but the O.P. no.1 did not pay any heed to such request.  It is stated that the O.P. no.1 has no right to adjust the said sum of Rs.2,80,000/- in the loan A/C of the complainant as because  as on 18.11.2016, the complainant was neither a defaulter nor the O.P. no.1 did take any lawful action for non-payment of loan account.  As such O.P. no.1 has caused deficiency in service.  It is stated by the complainant that due to non- payment of money, the Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. has stopped of business transaction with the complainant and for that reason the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.10,00,000/-.  Complainant therefore brought the said fact to the notice of O.P. no.2 and thereafter issued a legal notice to the O.P. no.1 requesting him to refund the said sum of Rs.2,80,000/- only in the account of the complainant but the O.P. no.1 did not pay any heed to such request.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the O.P. no.1 to refund Rs.2,80,000/- from the loan account to the current account of the complainant, an award of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and an award of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and an award of litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.    

                  Both the opposite parties have contested this case by filling a joint written version.  

                   Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite parties that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case, that the complaint is barred by limitation and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint as the instant complaint relates to commercial transaction. It is also the case of the O.Ps that the complainant is a defaulter and he willfully defaulted in repayment of loan in order to put the O.P.-Bank to cause serious trouble and difficulty.  Notices were served upon the complainant again and again but he did not care to repay the legitimate debuts of the bank and as such proceeding under

                                                                                                                                                    Contd…………….P/3

 

 

                                                                                                     ( 3 )

SERFAESI Act has already been initiated by serving notice dated 11.08.2016 u/s 13(2) of the Act for Rs.58,99,799/-.  Even thereafter the complainant did not care to repay the loan and overdue amount.  The bank, being a creditor, has every right to recover whatever amount available on the borrower.  It is stated that the complainant being the wrong doer cannot ask for any kind of equitable relief before the court of law against his creditor without performing his part of the contract.  The O.Ps therefore claim dismissal of the complaint with cost.

             To prove his case, the complainant Gour Chandra Chatterjee has examined as PW-1 by tendering a written examination-in-chief and during his evidence, few documents were marked exhibit 1 to 3 respectively. On the other hand, O.Ps have examined one witness namely Ashish Kumar by tendering a written examination-in-chief as OPW-1 and during his evidence, few documents were marked as Exbt. A to J and 4 to 7 respectively. 

 

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
2. Is the complainant a consumer under the provision of C.P. Act?
3. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                   

Decision with reasons

           Point nos.1&2:-

     Maintainability of this case has been questioned by the O.Ps on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer under the provision of the C.P. Act and therefore the present complaint is not maintainable.  On this score, we find that in his petition of complaint as well as in his written examination-in-chief supported by affidavit, the complainant himself has stated that he is a businessman and he used to maintain all business transaction with the O.P.-bank as well as with the Lafarge Cement Co. through RTGS from the O.P.-bank.  It thus appears from the very petition of complaint as well as from written examination-in-chief of the complainant that the complainant himself has admitted that he is a businessman by occupation and he used to maintain all business transaction with the O.P.-bank and the Lafarge Cement Co. through RTGS from the O.P.-Bank.  The disputed amount of Rs.2,80,000/- was allegedly deposited by the complainant in the bank of the O.P. for business transaction with the Lafarge Cement Co.  It thus appears that admittedly the disputed transaction in question was made for commercial purpose.  Nowhere in his petition of complaint, the complainant has stated that he availed such services for commercial

                                                                                                                                                            Contd…………….P/4

 

                                                           

                                                                                        ( 4 )

purpose exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.  So in view of Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the CP Act, the present complainant is not a consumer and therefore the present petition of complaint is not maintainable.

                           These two points are accordingly decided against the complainant.

            Point nos. 3 & 4:

                In view of our above findings in point nos. 1&2, the question of

           deficiency in service does not arise and the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs,

           as prayed for.                     

                 All the points are accordingly disposed of.

                 In the result, the complaint case fails,

                                                      Hence, it is,

                                                      Ordered,

                              that the complaint case no.84/2017  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

           Dictated & corrected by me

                 Sd/-B. Pramanik.                    Sd/- Sagarika Sarkar                Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                        President                                 Member                                President 

                                                                                                                 District Forum

                                                                                                             Paschim Medinipur