Date of Filing: 12.06.2014                                                      Date of Final Order: 06.11.2015

The brief facts of the present case, as culled out from the record is that the Complainant, Palan Ch. Das applied for PCIL loan from the O.P, Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Baburhat (Nilkuthi) Branch, Cooch Behar in 2008. After filing of the loan application for a loan of Rs.70,000/- for his personal need the O.P bank investigated the entire matter and the said loan was sanctioned being Account No. PCIL-918 (New PCIL-1510001592) and mode of payment was equated @ Rs.1,500/- per month payable by 60^th installments within five years. After sanctioning of the said loan the O.P, bank authority directed to the Complainant to deposited KVP/NSC/FD Certificate of Rs.20,000/- and L.I.C. Policy Certificate as mortgage and accordingly, the Complainant deposited original three KVP Certificates of Rs.20,000/- and original three L.I.C. Policy Certificates as mortgage to the O.P, Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Baburhat (Nilkuthi) Branch, Cooch Behar. The details of the said Certificates is mentioned here below :

According to the terms & conditions of the said loan agreement, the Complainant has already paid the loan amount with interest and after liquidating of the said loan the O.P bank issued a loan statement to the Complainant on 06/02/2014.

Afterwards the Complainant went to the O.P, bank for get back the aforesaid policy certificates. But the O.P bank informed to the Complainant to come another day due to shortage of staff and sometimes passed over the matter for next month. Therefore, the Complainant has not been able to draw his maturity amount of the said policies for such negligence of the O.P bank. As a result the Complainant is in great financial problem with his family members.

Finding no other alternative the Complainant sent a Notice with Registered Post to the O.P, Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 19/02/2014 regarding to get back the aforesaid policies, which was received by the O.P bank at the time of sanctioned the said loan of Rs.70,000/-. But till date the O.P bank did not pay any heed towards the Complainant after receiving the said notice.

Due to such negligent act of the O.P bank, the Complainant suffering from pecuniary loss, mental pain & agony and unnecessary harassment. The O.P bank also adopted his unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in the event for non-returning of the said policy certificates to the Complainant  

Hence, the Complainant filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the O.P bank to return back three KVP policy certificates of Rs.20,000/- and three L.I.C. policy certificates. The Complainant also prayed for direction to the O.P to pay (i) Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and unnecessary harassment, (ii) Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and (iii) Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.

The O.P, Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Baburhat (Nilkuthi) Branch, Cooch Behar has contested the case denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia the case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to bring the case. The main contention of the O.P is that the Complainant demanded only for returning back the said policy certificates from the O.P bank. Therefore, it is clear that he has no claim for return of KVP mentioned by him in his complaint as he has already received back of the same and the O.P performed his duties his borrower, in all respect for encashment of the same. But in prayer portion of the complaint, the Complainant further demanded the said even KVP. The O.P bank further stated in his W/V that the Complainant received back all the documents from the O.P inspite of that he has lodged the present complaint to meet his personal grudge against the Branch Manager, U.B.K.G.B and to harass the bank authority. Therefore, there is no unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the O.P bank.

Ultimately, this answering O.P prayed for dismissal of the case for want of cogent reason without any costs.

In the light of the contention of the complainant, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.

POINTS  FOR  CONSIDERATION

1. Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
3. Has the O.P any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
4. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

We have gone through the record very carefully, perused the entire documents in the record also heard the argument by the parties at a length.

Point No.1.

Evidently, the Complainant, Palan Ch. Das took loan of Rs.70,000/- from the O.P bank and has already paid the loan amount with interest. So, the Complainant is a consumer U/S 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Point No.2.

The O.P bank has branch office at Baburhat (Nilkuthi), Cooch Behar within jurisdiction of the Forum and the complaint value is Rs.60,000/-, which is far less than Rs.20,00,000/- i.e. maximum pecuniary limit of the Forum.

So, this Forum has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try this case.

Point No.3 & 4.

Admittedly, the Complainant, Palan Ch. Das took loan of Rs.70,000/- from the O.P bank on depositing three KVP Certificates and three LIC Policy Certificates and he has already paid up the said loan amount with interest.

‘Annexure-A’ is Statement of account of the Complainant also shows that he has paid the loan amount with interest.

It is the case of the Complainant that inspite of payment of entire loan with interest the O.P bank has not returned back his KVP and LIC policy certificates.

‘Annexure-B’ of the Complainant shows that he has applied to the O.P bank for delivery of the said certificates.

On the other hand it is the case of the O.P bank that the Complainant has received back all his documents and relied upon the ‘Annexure-7’ of the O.P bank i.e. Xerox copy of a receipt dated 06/02/2014, which reveals that the Complainant has received back all his documents by putting his signature. But the Complainant has denied his signature in the said receipt.

We also find from the ‘Annexure-F’ of the Complainant i.e. copy of Kotwali P.S. G.D. No.857/13 dated 14/05/2013, that the O.P bank lodged G.D stating that they have lost three NSC certificates in question of the Complainant during transit.

‘Annexure-E’ of the Complainant i.e. copy of application dated 19/08/2013 filed by the O.P bank to the Postal Authority shows that the O.P bank has applied for obtaining copy of the NSC in question.

So, it is clear that the O.P bank has been making false statement that they have delivered all documents to the Complainant.

In view of the judgement passed in Appeal No. FA – 08/126 passed by Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi submitted by the Ld. Agent/Adv. Of the Complainant as the loan amount was already paid. Bank guarantee/FDR, if any by the Appellant, be returned forthwith.

It is the case of the O.P bank that the Complainant has already received the said KVP Certificate but inspite of that he again demanded the same.

But the facts remained that without obtaining the said KVP Certificate from the O.P bank, the Complainant on 24/03/2014 applied to Post Master, Baneswar Post Office under RTI Act (Annexure-C of the Complainant) for getting information regarding his NSC, in question having total valuation of Rs.20,000/-  and ‘Annexure-D’ i.e. Reply by the Post Master dated 27/03/2014 shows that Post Master informed him that total pre-matured value of the said certificates i.e. Rs.37,019/- was already received by O.P Bank on 22/03/2013.

So, it is also clear that the OP Bank again made false statement even by filing affidavit about delivery of the NSC to the Complainant.

However, OP Bank has made out a story that the O.P Bank requested the Postal Authority by sending letter No.641 dated 31/01/2013 and reminder dated 30/03/2013 (Annexure-1 & 2) to release/cancel the pledge of the KVP, in question. But the Postal Authority sent the encashed value of KVP to the O.P Bank.

We find from the ‘Annexure 1 & 2’ that the Postal Authority was only asked to release the pledge by the O.P Bank. We do not know how Postal Authority did such mistake.

However, Postal Authority is not a party to the case.

The O.P Bank in their written argument have made out an another story that the O.P thoroughly investigated into the matter and checked their all documents and detected :-

1. That in the register of outward bills for collection, the O.P find that on 23/03/2013 they received five collections of cheques in different names and in different amounts out of which B.P/ No.219 dt.23/03/2013 in the name of UBKGB for NSC/KVP, 1 Cheque vide No.867101 on SBI Cooch Behar for Rs.37,019/- which was not specifically mentioned from whom the collection was sent.

2. That the O.P sent for collection of the said cheque and after receipt of collection on 28/03/2013 credited the same in the Overdraft Account (Loan) No.31 in the name of T. Debnath as some NSC/KVP was also sent for collection in this Account also.

3. That after detection of wrong posting to the Account of T. Debnath instead of Palan Chandra Das, the Bank Authority immediately rectified the same and credited the said amount in the Savings Account of the Complainant Sri Palan Chandra Das vide his Savings Account No.3932 on 03/07/2015 amounting to Rs.37,019/-.

4. That the Bank Authority has also paid interest from the date of receipt of collection of cheque up-to-date i.e. 28/03/2013 to 30/06/2015 to compensate the financial loss of interest of the Complainant amounting to Rs.3,332/-.

‘Annexure 3, 4 & 4-A’ i.e. statement Account of one T. Debnath show that on 28/03/2013, Rs.37,019/- was credited in the Savings Bank Account of said T. Debnath as matured value of NSC from OP Bank.

‘Annexure-5’ i.e. statement of Account of the  Complainant Sri Palan Chandra Das also shows that on 03/07/2015 Rs.37,019/-  and interest of Rs.3,332/- have been credited in the Savings Bank Account of the Complainant.

The present case has been filed on 12/06/2014 and the O.P Bank has paid pre-matured value of NSC Rs.37,019/- with interest of Rs.3,332/- on 03/07/2015 i.e. about one year after filing of the case.

During argument, Ld. Agent/ Advocate of the O.P Bank submitted that the act of the O.P Bank is not negligent act on the part of the O.P Bank but only mistake which is to be condoned.

During hearing of argument, Ld. Advocate/Agent of the Complainant submitted that the Bank Authority being Public Sector Bank should have come to the Forum in clear hands but the O.P Bank have made false statement and misguided the Forum.

In support of his complaint, he cited a ruling reported in 2015 (1) CPR 782 (NC) where Hon’ble National Commission in a case of loan transaction was pleased to hold that Bank must come to clean hands.

He further submitted that in the present case, the Bank Authority has submitted false affidavit before the Forum and should be punished for such misdeed. In this respect, he cited another ruling reported in 2015 (1) CPR 395 (NC) where Hon’ble National Commission was pleased to hold that filing of false affidavit before Consumer Forum is a very serious matter.

However, we find that in present case, a peculiar circumstances arose that where Bank Authority was not aware about encashment of KVP Certificates by the Postal Authority in their favour and also realization of said money by their employees. But in no way, such act of the Bank Authority can be permitted and we are constrained to hold that the Bank Authority should be cautious before swearing such affidavit before the Forum.

Considering over all matter into consideration and materials on record, we find that the act of the O.P Bank is not only negligent act but gross negligence on the part of the employees of the O.P Bank.

However, we find that regarding NSC, the Complainant has already received pre-matured value with interest during pending of the case. So, he is not entitled to get NSC certificate from the O.P Bank but he is entitled to get compensation from such wrongful/negligence act of the O.P Bank.

Regarding LIC Policy Certificate, the O.P Bank in their written argument stated that the Bank Authority/O.P also takes the responsibility that if the LIC Policies are missing from the custody of any one or not available, the O.P shall arrange and shall do all acts to issue duplicate copy of the said policies of the Complainant, if original policies are not detected.

Evidently, the O.P Bank has failed to trace out and deliver pledge LIC Policy Certificate of the Complainant to him.         

So, the O.P Bank is liable to obtain Duplicate copy of the said policies of the Complainant at their own costs and endeavour and supply the same to the Complainant within 3 months from this order. The OP Bank is also directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for mental pain and agony, harassment and deficiency in service.

So, these points are decided infavour of the Complainant.

Accordingly, the case succeeds in part with costs.

ORDER

Hence, it is ordered,

          That the present Case No. DF-35/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest but in part with costs of Rs.5,000/- against the O.P, Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Baburhat (Nilkuthi) Branch, Cooch Behar. The O.P is hereby directed to deliver duplicate copy of LIC Policy Certificates of the Complainant to him within 3 months from this date after obtaining the same from proper Authority at their own costs and endeavour. The O.P bank is also directed to pay Rs.30,000/-as compensation to the complainant for mental pain and agony, harassment and deficiency in service.

The ordered amount shall pay to the Complainant within 45 days failure of which the O.P bank shall have to pay Rs.100/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund”, West Bengal.

A plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied to the parties by hand/Registered post, free of cost with A/D.

Dictated and corrected by me.

                 President                                                                      President

   District Consumer Disputes                                         District Consumer Disputes   

Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar                                   Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar

                                                              Member                                                                   

                                               District Consumer Disputes                                                                  

                                            Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar