West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/126/2014

Smt. Swapna Banerjee. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Manager, S.B.I. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. S.K.Pal.

31 Mar 2016

ORDER

                                                          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and

 Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.126/2014

                                                       

1)Smt. Swapna Banerjee,

2)Sri Apurba Mukherjee……………….….……Complainants.

Versus

 

1)The Chief Manager, State Bank of India,

2) The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India.

                                                                                                               ………..Opp. Parties.

              For the Complainant : Mr. Dipankar Pati, Advocate.

              For the O.P.                : Mrs. Sumana Ghosh, Advocate.

                                                                                           

Decided on: -31/03/2016

                               

ORDER

                     Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is as follows :-

                     Complainant no.1 Smt. Swapna Banerjee and her uncle Sri Apurba Banerjee, complainant no.2 had a STDR (Special Term Deposit Receipt) being no.115479 dated 16/07/2008 with the opposite party-State Bank of India for a sum of Rs.2,36,390/- having it’s maturity dated on 15/06/2011.  On the date of maturity, the said STDR was renewed up to 23/03/2014 on 27/06/2011.  It is stated by the complainants that the said STDR actually belongs to complainant no.2 and he included the name of the complainant no.1 therein.  The said STDR in original is all along lying in the custody of the complainants and the same was never subjected to any security of any loan.  After maturity of the

Contd…………………P/2

 

 

 

( 2 )

STDR, the complainant no.2 went to opposite party-Bank for receiving the maturity amount of the  STDR but the opposite party avoided payment and failed to give any suitable reply and simply stated that such maturity value of the STDR has been adjusted towards the loan of one Somenath Banerjee, the husband of the complainant no.1.  Hearing that, complainant no.2 became astonished and he brought the matter to the knowledge of the complainant no.1 and she disclosed that there was never any occasion on her part  and she was not concerned with any loan of Somnath Banerjee and there is no scope for adjustment of maturity value of STDR towards the alleged loan account of Somnath Banerjee. Immediately thereafter, the complainant no.1 wrote a letter dated 07/06/2014 to the opposite party thereby denying her liability towards the loan of her husband and demanded payment of maturity value of the STDR at an early date.  On receipt of such notice, the opposite party vide it’s letter dated 07/07/2014 intimated that such STDR amount was closed on 22/06/2011 and the closer amount of Rs.2,10,941/-  was credited to the joint account of the complainant no.1 with her husband, which is absolutely false and baseless.  It is stated that the original STDR is still lying in the custody of the complainants and it would be evident from the STDR itself that the same was renewed on 27/06/2011 and there is no scope to close the same on 22/06/2011.  Thereafter the complainant no.1 sent a legal notice to the opposite party on 07/08/2014 by registered post with A/D and the same was duly served upon the opposite party no.1 on 12/08/2014.  By the said notice, the complainants demanded payment of maturity value of STDR with up to date interest but the opposite party did not give any reply to such notice and has  avoided payment of the same which is an act of illegality and its amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint praying for directing the opposite party to refund the maturity value of STDR with up to date interest and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and damage and for cost.

 Opposite party no.1 appeared in this case and by filing a written objection, they have contested this case.  In spite of service of notice upon opposite party no.2, none appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 and therefore the case was ordered to be heard ex-parte against opposite party no.2.

               Denying and disputing the case of the complainants, it is the specific case of the opposite party no.1, as disclosed in their written objection,  it is the specific case of the opposite party- Bank that a loan was started on 25/11/2009 by Somnath Banerjee  against the fixed deposit account no.30880904442 of Rs.2,10,941/-.  Said fixed deposit was liquidated or closed on 22/06/2011 before actual maturity date i.e. on 04/09/2014 by giving consent and taking liability of the loan of Somnath Banerjee through SB account

Contd…………………P/3

 

 

 

( 3 )

no.20038775602 and that STDR of Rs.2,10,941/- was liquidated after the NPA of loan account no.30880904442 through cheque no.1055 given by Swapna Banerjee.  On enquiry from the bank record, it is revealed that Mr. Somnath  Banerjee, husband of Swapna Banerjee, the complainant, availed loan against bank deposits (STDR) on 25/11/2009 and the same was closed on 22/06/2011 and the closed amount of Rs.2,10.941/- was credited to S/B A/c no.20038775602 jointly maintained by Somnath Banerjee without closing the aforesaid loan account of Somnath Banerjee.  Where Swapna Banerjee was a guarantor.  Both the husband and wife were having the responsibility and liability to refund the said amount of Rs.2,10,941/-  and the bank had no other alternative but to appropriate  the loan amount from their Savings Bank Account to close the loan account.  According to the banking set off rules,  the bank has a right to set off the NPA loan. Opposite party therefore claims dismissal of the complaint.

 

Point for Decision

 

1)Are the complainants consumers under the opposite party –bank ?

2.  Are the complainants entitled to the relief, as prayed for ?

 

               Decisions with reason

 

                                 Both the points are taken up together for consideration.

                                 In this case the complainants adduced no evidence but during the cross-examination of OPW-1, the said STDR in question has been marked as exbt.-1. On behalf of the opposite party, two witnesses namely Sri Dipak Dutta and Mr. G. K. Wadhwa  were examined as OPW-1 and 2 respectively and during their evidence few documents were marked as Exhibit -A to H respectively.

                                  Admittedly, the complainants had a STDR (Special Term Deposit Receipt) being no.115479 with the opposite party-Bank for a sum of Rs.2,36,390/- having it’s maturity date on 15/06/2011.  Said STDR has been marked as exhibit -1 in the case during the cross-examination of OPW-1.  From the said STDR, we find that although the date of maturity of the said STDR was on 15/06/2011 but the same was renewed w.e.f. 27/06/2011 and it was renewed up to 23/03/2014.  According to the complainants, after the date of maturity of the said STDR, the complainant no.2 went to the opposite party-bank for receiving the maturity value of the said STDR which was renewed upto 23/03/2014 but the opposite party-bank avoided payment and stated that such maturity value has been

Contd…………………P/4

 

 

 

 

( 4 )

 adjusted towards the loan account of one Somnath Banerjee, the husband of the complainant no.1 Smt. Swapna Banerjee.  From the cross-examination of OPW-1 Sri Dipak Dutta, who happens to be the Chief Manager of the opposite party-bank and who deposed on behalf of the opposite party-bank, we find that he has admitted that when  any loan is granted against any fixed deposit, then there is a remarks seal on that particular original STDR and the said STDR is kept in the custody of the bank till repayment of the loan.  From this exhibit-1, we find that there is no such remarks seal on this STDR regarding granting of any loan against this STDR and this STDR (Exhibit-1) was also produced from the custody of the complainant and the same was marked as Exhibit-1 during the cross examination of OPW-1.  So, under no stretch of imagination it can  be said that this STDR (Exhibit-1) was subjected to any mortgage/ lien against any loan.  According to the complainants, when they went to the Bank for getting maturity value of the STDR then complainant no.2 was told by the bank that  the maturity amount of this STDR  has been adjusted towards the loan account of Somnath Banerjee.  At the time of hearing of argument, Ld. Lawyer for the opposite party-bank had drawn our attention on Exhibit –“H”, which is the statement of account of complainant no.1 Smt. Swapna Banerjee and submitted that from this statement of account in entry dated 13/04/2014 it would be found that the maturity amount of that STDR being account no.30428768305 was credited in the said S/B Account no.11161854946 of Smt Swapna Banerjee after deduction of income tax. From this Exhibit-H, we find that a sum of Rs.3,84,966/- was credited in the said account of Swapna Banerjee towards closing amount of the STDR being account no.3028768305.  It is therefore submitted by the Ld. Lawyer of the opposite party-Bank that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as they have already deposited the maturity amount of that STDR  (Exhibit-1) in the account of complainant no.1.  It is further submitted by the Ld. Lawyer for the opposite party-bank that the said fact has been suppressed by the complainants and they have not come with clean hands.  As against this, Ld. Lawyer for the complainants produced and filed the pass book of the said account no.11161854946 of complainant no.1 Smt, Swapna Banerjee and submitted that it would be seen from the entry dated 13/04/2014 that there is an entry to the effect “A/C CLD TO CLOSE LOAN 30969271477 TRF FRM SWAPNA BANERJEE” and amount  of Rs.3,84,966/- was credited in the said account and on that day a sum of Rs.2,64,383 was debited and transferred to Mr. Somnath Banerjee. Statement of such transfer of Rs.2,64,383/-  has not been filed by the opposite party-bank although the earlier transaction regarding crediting of Rs.3,84,966/- has been submitted vide  

Contd…………………P/5

 

 

 

 

( 5 )

 Exhibit –H.  It is not understood as to why the opposite party-bank without receiving the original STDR (exhibit-1) from the complainants, suo motu credited the maturity value of that STDR in the account of complainant no.1 on 13/04/2016 and on the same day they debited a sum of Rs.2,64,383/- to transfer the same amount to Somnath Banerjee.  Since the original STDR (Exbit-1) was lying in the custody of the complainants and the same was produced and filed in this case by the complainants, so it can be safely presumed that the opposite party-bank suo motu credited the maturity value of that STDR in the account of Swapna Banerjee, the complainant no.1 and most arbitrarily debited a sum of Rs.2,64,284/-  on the same day with a view to  debit a sum of Rs.2,64,383/-  for transferring the same in the account of Somnath Banerjee.  In their petition of complaint, the complainants have also alleged that when the complaint no.2 went to the opposite party-bank for receiving  the maturity value of the STDR then he was told that such maturity value has been adjusted towards loan account of one Somnath Banerjee .  Said fact finds supports from this entry dated 13/04/2014 in the Passbook of Savings Bank A/C no.11161854946 of complainant no.1.  From that entry dated 13/04/2014, we also find reference of loan account being no.30969271477.  From Exhibit-B, which is a letter dated 21/06/2011 sent by Somnath Banerjee to the opposite party-bank,  we find that the said loan account being D/L no.30969271477 stands in the name of Somnath Banerjee.  It thus appears from the said Passbook of Savings A/C no.11161854946 of complainant no.1 that on that day i.e. on 13/04/2014 the amount of STDR was credited for closing that loan account no.30969271477 of Somnath Banerjee and a sum of Rs.2,64,383/- was debited and transferred in the account of Somnath Banerjee.  It is not the case of the O.P.-Bank that the present complainants were the guarantor of the said loan of Somnath Banerjee and that this STDR (Exhibit -1) was subjected to mortgage/lien  in respect of that loan.  Thus, we find that the bank had no authority to debit the said sum of Rs.2,64,383/- from the maturity value of the STDR (Exhibit-1) of the complainants for transferring the same for adjustment of the loan account of Somnath Banerjee.  Since there is no evidence that the complainants are the guarantors or in any way responsible for general lien pertaining to the loan of Somenath Banerjee, so the opposite party-bank was not justified at all for debiting  the said amount of Rs.2,64,383/-   for adjustment of the loan account of Somnath Banerjee. Such act of the opposite party-bank amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part and therefore the complainants are entitled to get return of the said amount of Rs.2,64,383/- and for other reliefs  regarding compensation and cost.  The complaint case is therefore deserved to be allowed.

Contd…………………P/6

 

 

 

 

 

( 6 )

 

                                             Hence, it is,

                                                                  Ordered,

                                    that the complaint case no.126 /2014  is allowed on contest with cost against opposite party no.1 an ex-parte against opposite party no.2. Opposite parties are directed to reverse  the debit entry of Rs.2,64,383/- from the date when it  was debited and the complainants do get interest as applicable to the said savings bank account no.11161854946  with effect from  the debit entry till the said account subsists within a month from this date of order.  Opposite parties are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-  and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainants within a month from this date of order.

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

 

                 Dictated & Corrected by me

                                Sd/-                                              Sd/-                                  Sd/-

                           President                                       Member                           President

                                                                                                                     District Forum

                                                                                                                  Paschim Medinipur