Final Order/Judgment

Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER

          The instant case filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 emanates from the grievances of the complainant arising out of the treatment meted out by Bandhan Bank, Dankuni Branch, the respective cluster head of Hooghly District and the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the said bank.

Filtering out the unnecessary and somewhat irrelevant details in the complaint, the complainant’s case may be summarized as follows.

In epigrammatic, the case stated in the complaint is that the complainant, the sole proprietor of a trading business under the trade name M/S S. B. Traders and Mobile Centre was a holder of a simple savings bank account in Bandhan Bank (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party). It will be worth mentioning that though in the instant case there are three opposite parties, all the opposite parties belong to the same organization that is Bandhan Bank.

At the very outset it should be pointed out that the complainant has claimed that the trading business owned by him is the sole profession for the purpose of earning his livelihood. However the opposite parties in their different representations submitted in course of hearing from time to time could not establish anything otherwise.

Thus, primarily so far as the explanation annexed to sub-section (d) (ii) of Section 2 (1) of the Act is concerned, the complainant may be recognized as a consumer.

Now, reportedly,

1. A cash credit loan of Rs.300000/- (Three lakhs only) was granted by the bank against hypothecation of stock and a guarantor. The said account was opened on 16.06.2016 whereas the required documents and relevant forms were submitted on 23.05.16. The petitioner here claims that the bank got some blank forms signed by him at that point of time. It is further claimed that the cash credit account was opened without intimating the complainant, the date of opening of the account and on ‘verbal enquiry’ he came to know about the opening of the account. Besides, no copy of formal sanction in this regard was supplied to the complainant.
2. The said CC A/C was debited on 16.06.16 and the proceeds were credited to the S/B A/C of the proprietor maintained with the same bank allegedly without any authority. On enquiry the bank authority on 20.06.16 expressed their inability to reverse the entry and eventually the complainant had to draw the amount in eight installments (as the maximum drawing limit was Rs.49000/-) and transfer the same to his CC A/C. For this interim period the bank charged interest to the tune of Rs.1200/-. Naturally the loan could not be utilized during this period.
3. From then on, as admitted by the complainant, there was a good relationship with the bank and the loan could be utilized smoothly.
4. The complainant having been under the notion that the CC A/C was valid up to the date 16.06.17, issued a cheque to one M/S Ram Narayan Agency for Rs.4370/- and the same was presented on 30.05.17. However the cheque was not entertained assigning the reason ‘exceeds arrangement’. The matter was taken up initially with the branch level and then with the cluster level and finally with the highest level of the bank.
5. Meanwhile, there was outstanding amount of Rs.1,70,833/- related to the CC A/C which the complainant was supposed to liquidate. It is claimed that due to lack of cash flow it was not possible for the complainant to liquidate the outstanding balance at a time and he was willing to liquidate the same in 48 monthly installments.
6. On the other hand the bank on and from 01.12.16, started realizing interest and other incidental charges by debiting the S/B A/C of the complainant instead of the CC A/C without any authorization which is claimed to be deficiency of service.
7. As regards dishonoring of the cheque and realization of interest and other charges, there were quite a few exchanges of communication through e-mail between the complainant and the bank and the bank ultimately in their mail dtd.21.11.17 admitted that there was some error and they were in the process of changing the interest recovery process and expiry limit of CC A/C. It was further intimated by the bank that the cheque was dishonored not because of insufficient funds but on account of expiry of CC limit. The petitioner at this point expresses his grievance over deprival of any sort of alert regarding expiry of cash credit limit and renewal of the same from the bank end.
8. The complainant points out that the wrongful dishonor of the cheque is not limited to the actual pecuniary loss but also loss of credit and injury to the reputation.

The complainant filed the complaint petition seeking direction upon the opposite parties to refund the interest amount of Rs.1200/-, to waive the interest charged and/or realized on account of cash credit account, to allow the complainant to liquidate the outstanding balance of Rs.1,70,833/- in 48 equal monthly installments, to pay the complainant Rs.10,00,000/- ‘towards injury to his credit and reputation’, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and to pay Rs.30,000/- towards cost of litigation.

The opposite parties belonging to the same organization contested the case by filing elaborate rebuttals in their written version, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument denying therein the allegation leveled against them.

The opposite parties who belong to the same organization i.e. Bandhan Bank claim that in the sanction letter relating to the cash credit A/C, the expiry date was clearly mentioned. The opposite parties categorically states that being a reputed and established organization they were not supposed to get some blank forms signed by a customer while opening a cash credit A/C and thus the allegation leveled against them by the complainant is denied. So far as the intimation of expiry limit of the CC A/C is concerned, the opposite parties points out that having been aware of the contact details of the relationship manager, the complainant was at liberty to enquire about the specific details of the expiry limit of the CC A/C.

As the complainant failed to share the financial documents and stock statements for renewal of the account, the operation of such account was therefore suspended.

The opposite parties assert that the cheque was dishonored as the account remained inactive for non-renewal. The reason was not insufficient fund as claimed by the complainant.

Finally the opposite parties brings to the knowledge of this commission that the complainant is a defaulter as the account of the complainant has been declared as Non-Performing Assets as on 30.09.2017 and the complainant received demand notices from the opposite parties bank. However the complainant preferred to remain a defaulter.

The opposite parties further points out that while sanctioning the cash credit facility on 26.05.2016 it was clearly stated in the sanction letter that ‘loan tenure shall be reviewed within twelve months.

Issues for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act?
2. Whether this Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?

       Decision with reason

Issue No. 1

In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records it transpires that the complainant is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 are concerned.

Issue No. 2

Both the complainant and the opposite party are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly. The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- Thus this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.

Issue No. 3 and 4

Materials on records are perused. At the very outset, the glaring features of the case deserve mention here.

The complaint was filed on 24.05.19 while the CC A/C was opened on 16.06.16.

 Now the complainant has expressed certain grievances involving the opening of the account, alleged communication gap between him and the opposite parties, bank’s dealing with that account, charging of interest and certain other allied activities. However the petitioner at that point of time or within the statutory time limit did not feel the necessity to approach to this forum, highlighting the alleged harassment, deficiency in service or unfair trade activities of the opposite parties if any.

Curiously enough, the complainant in his representation submitted in course of hearing, admitted in no uncertain terms that ‘he used to utilize his cash credit limit smoothly and was running his business smoothly and a good relationship was established between the banker and the complainant’.

Thus it is an established fact that at that point of time the complainant did not have any grievance with regard to the service provided by the bank.

Now on 24.05.2019 while filing the complaint, the complainant revives some almost forgotten grievances and incorporates the same in the complaint petition.

But at this juncture, the Commission is of considered view that the grievances if any, pertaining to the period prior to 24.05.2017 are already barred by limitation of time in terms of the provision of section 24A of the Act. Besides, the petitioner did not file any petition for condonation of delay. The complainant could not satisfy this Commission that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen.

Thus, the commission cannot be inclined to intervene with the issues pertaining to the period prior to 24.05.2017.

Now the focus lies on dishonoring of the cheque of Rs.4370/- issued on 27.05.17 by the complainant against his CC A/C to one M/S Ram Narayan Agency which was presented on 30.05.17 and returned on 31.05.17 assigning the reason ‘exceeds arrangement’.

And right here, the only cause of action comes up which can be entertained for consideration.

The matter related to dishonoring of the cheque was taken up by the complainant with the appropriate authorities of the bank as well as the Banking Ombudsman. Finally, the opposite parties i.e the Bank clarified in their communication that the cheque was dishonored not because of insufficient funds but on account of expiry of the credit limit.

In this connection it may be mentioned here that on examination of the application form for small enterprise loan i.e. the CC A/C and the corresponding sanction letter it is found that the application was made on 23.05.2016 and the sanction letter is dtd.26.05.16. The application form which includes debit authorization and demand promissory note is signed four times by the sole proprietor.

It is clearly stated in the sanction letter that the loan tenure was to be reviewed/renewed within twelve months. The complainant signed six times in the sanction letter.

There is no reason to believe that the sole proprietor while applying for the loan and while receiving the sanction letter signed so many times unconsciously without knowing the basic content of those documents.

However the complainant became a defaulter as the account of the complainant had been declared as non-performing asset as on 30.09.17 and the complainant received demand notices from the opposite parties. In the e-mail dtd. 15.02.19 the bank authorities informed the complainant that the cash credit loan account was overdue for an amount of Rs.2,25,057/-

The complainant on receipt of the notice, prayed for waiver of the interest and 48 equal installments to liquidate the dues.

 Apparently this is a surprising as well as a questionable coincidence that the complainant at this point time chose the option of approaching to this Commission and filed the petition on 24.05.19, almost two years after the only cause of action arose, almost on the verge of being barred by limitation of time.

Now, considering all the aspects of the instant case as discussed above this commission is of the view that as regards the sole grievance considered in this order, the only deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is found in the matter that the opposite party being a reputed bank did not feel it a necessity to send an alert to the complainant through electronic means or even by a telephonic call about the expiry of the validity of the cash credit account.

However for this deficiency in service, question of considering the astronomical and ludicrous claim for compensation as preferred by the complainant does not arise. Apart from this, this commission is not inclined to pass any direction to the bank in the matter of mode of recovering the dues from the complainant.

But after considering the facts and circumstances of the case this District Commission is of view to award Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs.5000/- (five thousand only) for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost. However the same will be adjustable with the dues recoverable from the complainant.   

Hence, it is

                                                ORDERED

that the complaint case no.59/2019 is allowed on contest but on part.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgements/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.