West Bengal

Siliguri

44/S/2013

SRI BISHNU PADA DAS, - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE BRANCH MANAGER, - Opp.Party(s)

10 Jun 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

 

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 44/S/2013.                DATED : 10.06.2015.       

 

 

BEFORE  PRESIDENT           : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                       President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

 

                      MEMBER           : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA.

 

 

COMPLAINANT             : SRI BISHNU PADA DAS,

                                                            S/O Late Harendra Chandra Das,

  R/O Aurobinda Pally, P.O.- Rabindra

  Sarani, P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling.

  Proprietor of Propriatorship Firm M/s

  Anjana Jewelers and its shop

  situated at Khudiram Pally,

  P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling. 

 

 

O.P.                               : THE BRANCH MANAGER,   

  Allahabad Bank, Siliguri Branch,  

  Rajani Bagan, Hill Cart Road,

  P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri,

                                                  Dist.- Darjeeling.

 

                                                                                                                                                                       

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      : Sri Sandip Mandal, Advocate.

 

FOR THE OP                           : Sri Prasanta Joarder, Advocate.

 

 

 

 

 

J U D G E M E N T

 

 

The complainant’s case in brief is that he is the proprietor of M/s Anjana Jewelers within Siliguri town, and the said business is his only source of income.  The complainant had approached the OP for financial assistance, and on 23.11.2002 he was granted cash credit loan with a limit of Rs.2,17,700/-.  Considering the good conduct of the complainant in respect of repayment of the loan, the OP/bank enhanced the said amount of loan upto a further limit of Rs.3,00,000/- on 26.02.2005.  The enhanced limit was secured by fixed deposit (TDR) of a sum of Rs.1,05,000/-, and two other LIC policy certificates for a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.  The fixed deposits (TDRs) matured on 29.05.2007, and 18.06.2007, but the OP credited lower amounts than the actual maturity

 

Contd……P/2

-:2:-

 

 

value in respect of the said fixed deposits.  The complainant claims that the OP not only undervalued the said fixed deposits, but also adjusted the said amounts almost ten months after the date of maturity without crediting any interest.  The complainant claims that he has no outstanding dues or liability in respect of the loan, and on 22.07.2008 he made a representation to the OP for release of the two LIC policy certificates, but the OP did not comply.  Even ld advocate’s notice to the OP was in vain.  The complainant thus filed this case praying that the OP be directed to return the two LIC policy certificates, along with some other reliefs.

The OP contests the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations raised by the complainant. 

The specific case of the OP is that complainant took loan from OP keeping subject Fixed Deposits and LIC policies against the loan.  The complainant failed to pay the loan amount and to repay the dues.  It is also case of the OP that the proceeds of said securities were adjusted with the loan account.  After such adjustment there are still dues in the said loan amount.  The complainant did not pay the said amount.  The complainant still liable to pay the existing outstanding amount including up to the date interest and charges to the OP to close the said account.  The OP sent letters vide Ref. No.SLG/ADV/CC/05/369 dated 23.09.2005 and Ref. No.SLG/ADV/ANJANA/06/334 dated 13.07.2006.  In spite of that the complainant did not regularize the same.  So, the OP prays for dismissal of the case.

Complainant has filed some documents.  These are :-

1.       Lawyer Notice dated 18.12.2010 along with Postal receipts and A/D card. 

2.       Renewal Premium receipt (2 copies) of LIC Policy numbers 450060575 and 450065331. 

3.       Statement of Account dated 25.05.2010. 

Contd……P/3

-:3:-

 

 

Points for consideration

 

1.       Whether the complainant is entitled to get return the LIC Policy certificates ?

2.       Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation as prayed for?

Decision with reason

 

The two issues are taken up together for the brevity of discussion.

To prove the case the complainant has filed documents and he has examined and adduced evidence as PW No.1. 

The OP has examined and adduced evidence as OP W No.1. 

Ld advocate of the of the complainant argued that as per agreement it was a duty of the OP bank to return the liquidated security certificates i.e., the LIC policy, but the OP has not been done.  To that effect let us no come to the questionnaire of the parties.  In

In a question of the complainant the OP has replied in Question No.10 that “the subject term deposit was not renewed by the borrower and therefore no interest was accrued to that term deposit.  The proceeds of the term deposit was adjusted because it was held as collateral security for the loan.  Liquid collateral security has to be adjusted with the loan account when the said account is turned to NPA according to bank’s norms”.  Then OP bank stated any liquid collateral security, whether matured or not, has to be adjusted with the loan account which is turned to NPA with immediate effect.  

The complainant has argued that matured value of LIC certificates and Fixed Deposits have been adjusted by the OP Bank to deprive the petitioner from his legitimate claim. 

It is admitted position that the complainant took loan.  It is admitted position that the complainant secured the loan by depositing

 

Contd……P/4

-:4:-

 

 

term deposit and LIC certificates.  It is also admitted that the OP bank has liquidated the term deposit amount and LIC amount against the loan of the complainant.  OP bank further demands some money as interest of principal amount. 

The complainant in para 6 of written argument has admitted that loan was sanctioned of Rs.8,06,934/- and the petitioner had drawn a sum of Rs.7,64,000/-.  But the complainant did not file the actual amount of his dues to the bank by explaining his statement of Accounts or by taking any recourse to bring the statement of Accounts to show that he has deposited or returned the whole principal amount, along with interest as per rates prevailing in those years.  If that be so, it cannot be concluded that the complainant was entitled to get the LIC certificates after its maturity, because there is no prove that he cleared the dues to the OP bank.  In absence of such proof, it appears that OP took the amount by surrendering LIC policy certificates against the loan of complainant. 

So, material on record, and argument advanced by both sides, does not show that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank or negligence on the part of the OP bank. 

The complainant is unable to prove his case by brining adequate evidence.

So, the case fails. 

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.44/S/2013 is dismissed on contest, but without cost.

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

 

 

-Member-                                                     -President-