DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 136/2022
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
21.11.2022 16.12.2022 14.12.2023
Complainant/s:- | SUSHOVAN RAY CHAUDHURY, S/o Sri Sisir Ray Chaudhury, Residing at, Vivekananda Sarani, Post Office, and Police Station – Barasat, Kolkata – 700127, District North 24 Parganas, West Bengal. -Vs- |
Opposite Party/s:- | THE BRANCH MANAGER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, Barasat Branch, Colony more, Kolkata – 700126, Post Office – Nabapally, Police Station – Barasat, District North 24 Parganas, West Bengal. |
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
Complainant above named filed this complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the aforesaid Opposite Party praying for direction to release / return the two title deeds which were deposited before the O.P at the time of taking loan, issue of no objection certificate in favour of the petitioner, compensation amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-, litigation cost and other reliefs. He alleged in the petition of complaint that he being a citizen of India took educational loan from the O.P and at the time of taking said loan he deposited 2 title deeds as security of the loan. He was paying EMI of the loan regularly but after completion of his education he could not able to find out a job and for that reason he could not repay the loan amount. Due to non-payment of the said loan O.P along with Regional Manager of P N Bank came to his house. Complainant had agreed with the proposal of O.P for settlement of the outstanding loan amount. In the said meeting loan amount was settled to Rs. 5,00,000/-. Thereafter, Complainant on different dates paid the said amount. But inspite of receiving the settlement amount O.P did not release / return the aforesaid two title deeds and did not issue any NOC in favour of the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant filed this case praying for aforesaid reliefs.
On perusal of record we find that notice was served upon the O.P on 24/05/2022 but O.P did not turn up before this Commission.
TRIAL
During trial, Complainant filed evidence affidavit-in-chief.
DOCUMENTS
Complainant at the time of filing of this case filed the following document:-
- Copy of Passbook in respect of Savings Bank A/c of the Complainant…..(Xerox).
- Loan sanctioned letter dated 20/04/2009.
- Valuation report in respect of immovable property dated 29/04/2009….(Xerox).
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No. 136/2022
- Application of Sisir Kumar Ray Chaudhury dated 23/02/2022 addressed to O.P …. 1 sheet….(Xerox).
- Application of Sisir Kumar Ray Chaudhury dated 17/02/2020 addressed to O.P No.…..2 sheets….(Xerox).
- Application of Sisir Kumar Ray Chaudhury dated 12/02/2020 addressed to O.P No. …. 1 sheet….(Xerox).
- Fees structure dated 20/11/2008 issue by Sirdisai Engineering College, Bangalore.
- Notice of O.P dated 18/09/2018……….1 sheet…(Xerox).
- Notice of O.P dated 17/09/2018……….2 sheets…(Xerox).
- Summon of DLSA dated 27/01/2020.
- Envelope…..xerox.
- Application of Ruma Roychowdhury addressed to O.P dated 27/09/2018
- Overdue notice dated 11/11/2021.
- Money receipt regarding repayment of loan……4 sheets….(Xerox).
BNA
Complainant filed BNA.
Decision with Reasons
On perusal of sanctioned letter dated 20/04/2009 we find that O.P Bank had sanctioned loan of Rs. 7,38,000/- in favour of the Complainant. On perusal of document dated 29/04/2009 we find that S. N. Sur & Associates being the valuer assessed market value of the property lying in the name of Sisir Kumar Chaudhury i.e. father of the Complainant measuring 1 cottah 13 chitaks 18 sq.ft. Market value of the property was assessed to Rs. 15.97 lakhs.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued at the time of hearing that one amicable settlement was made on the basis of application of Ruma Roychowdhury i.e. mother of the Complainant and O.P was agreed to settle the dispute. As per settlement Complainant was asked to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- out of which Rs. 2,00,000/- within November 2018, Rs. 1,00,000/- within December 2018 and Rs. 2,00,000/- within January 2018. As per the said amicable settlement Complainant paid the money on different dates in favour of the O.P bank.
In total Complainant paid Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of the O.P. In support of his contention he referred the application of Ruma Roychowdhury dated 27/09/2018 addressed to O.P bank.
On careful perusal of the said document we find that by the said application Complainant’s mother Ruma Roychowdhury stated before the O.P bank that she was agreed with the settlement. It has also mentioned therein that he requested the O.P to settle the dispute within Rs. 3-4 lakhs but O.P bank was not agreed with the said proposal and O.P bank was agreed with the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to be paid within November 2018, Rs. 1,00,000/- before December 2018 and Rs. 2,00,000/- within January 2019. Over the said document seal and signature of O.P bank appears.
Complainant at the time of filing of this case produced the aforesaid document along with other documents and copy of the petition of complaint and aforesaid documents were sent to the O.P and as per record O.P had received the notice on 24/05/2022 so it is clear before us that O.P / bank received the aforesaid documents. It is also clear before us that the entire contention of the Complainant along
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
C.C. No. 136/2022
with documents had brought to the notice of O.P bank but they did not feel any necessity to contest the case and ultimately they did not turn up before this Commission and did not file W/V denying the aforesaid contention of the petitioner. Moreover, Complainant by way of affidavit-in-chief stated the aforesaid facts before this Commission. Said affidavit-in-chief was not challenged by the O.P. No counter evidence has been filed from the side of the O.P challenging the aforesaid evidence of Complainant. Accordingly we find that aforesaid evidence of Complainant is nothing but unchallenged testimony. So, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the aforesaid evidence of the Complainant.
Placing reliance upon the evidence of the Complainant and aforesaid documents on record we find that there is no reason before us to disbelieve the contention of the Complainant. Accordingly we are of the view that Complainant has able to established by affidavit-in-chief as well as by producing the aforesaid documents before this Commission that aforesaid loan was settled with the O.P for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Complainant paid the said amount on different dates before the O.P.
We have stated earlier that Complainant and his father deposited 2 title deeds in favour of the O.P at the time taking aforesaid educational loan. It is the grievance of the Complainant that inspite of his verbal request as well as written request by his father and mother, O.P bank not yet returned the aforesaid two title deeds in favour of the Complainant and O.P bank not yet issued NOC in favour of the Complainant. Aforesaid fact of the O.P / bank are nothing but deficiency in service.
From the record we find that Complainant is a consumer and O.P is a service provider.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that Complainant has able to established his grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly he is entitled to reliefs as per his prayer.
In the result, the present case succeeds.
Hence ,
It is ordered,
That the present case Vide No. C.C./136/2022 is allowed ex-parte against the O.P with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by O.P in favour of the Complainant.
O.P / bank is directed to return the aforesaid two title deeds in favour of the Complainant which were deposited at the time of taking educational loan before the O.P bank by the Complainant and his father within 45 days from this day failing which Complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case we do not pass any order on the point of compensation against the O.P / bank.
Let a plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President