West Bengal

Howrah

CC/13/48

M/s M.P.S. GLASS & Co. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Manager, SBI - Opp.Party(s)

19 Jul 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM HOWRAH
20, Round Tank Lane, Howrah – 711 101.
(033) 2638-0892; 0512 E-Mail:- confo-hw-wb@nic.in Fax: - (033) 2638-0892
 
Complaint Case No. CC/13/48
 
1. M/s M.P.S. GLASS & Co.
Prop: Mr. Sudarshan Banerjee, 203/B/1, Rajendra Avenue, Near Uttarpara Rail Station, P.O.- Uttarpara, Hooghly.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Chief Manager, SBI
SMECC & SAR wing Howrah, Ganesh Garden, 106, Kiran Chandra Sinha Road, Shibpore, Howrah-711 102.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE T.K. Bhattacharya PRESIDENT
 HON'ABLE MR. P.K. Chatterjee MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MRS. Smt. Jhumki Saha MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

DATE OF FILING                    :      19-02-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      19-03-2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     19-07-2013.

 

 M/S M.P.S. GLASS & Co.

(Prop. Mr. Sudarshan Banerjee)

203/B/1, Rajendra Avenue, Near Uttarapura Rail Station,

P.O. Uttarapra, Hooghly – ----------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

 

-          Versus   -

 

1) The Chief Manager,

State Bank of India,

SMECC & SAR wing Howrah,

Ganges Garden,

106, Kiran Ch. Sinha Road,

Shibpore, Howrah- 711 102

 

2) The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India,

RASMECCC, Howrah, 9, G.T. Road (South)

Howrah – 711 101.------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

 

 

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

 

 

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

 

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

 

 

 

Complainant, M/S M.P.S. Glass & Co. represented by its proprietor, Surdarshan Banerjee, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.Ps to refund an amount of `1, 11,700/-, being the amount of interest received by the O.P., to pay an amount of `2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, harassment along with `5,000/- as litigation cost and such other order or orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

 

Brief fact of the case is that the complainant, as an unemployed person, on 18.10.2006 applied for a cash/ credit loan of `3,00,000/- from O.Ps. towards the working capital that would be required for manufacturing of Glass ampules to be started in a proposed factory shed on rent situated at 13/B, Ganpat Roy Khemka Lane, Liluah, Howrah. Being Satisfied with the proposal of the complainant, O.P.  sanctioned the said loan on 16.07.2007 through a letter of arrangement bide annexure Xerox copy of letter of arrangement issued on 23.07.2007. Immediately after receiving that letter of arrangement, complainant opened an cash/ credit A/C being no.30213658068 with the branch of O.P. 2 without any initial cash deposit except stocks to avail himself of the said loan required as working capital for the purchase of raw  materials to start the production of glass ampules. That working capital would have been required at different stages for purchasing raw materials to be used for the manufacture of glass ampules and those were supposed to be sold in Bihar and Jharkhand. For that purpose, to start that manufacturing unit, complainant also obtained necessary permission from the Directorate of cottage & swall Industries, Govt. of West Bengal vide memo no. 1635/letter/EM/2007 -08 dt. 11.06.2007 to run his livelihood.

 

Even complainant purchased necessary machineries and equipments to start that manufacturing unit. But the landlord of the factory shed, where the said manufacturing unit was supposed to be started, created some trouble in connivance with the local club and the complainant was severely & seriously resisted to start the said manufacturing unit so, the production of Glass ampules could not be made possible by the complainant which was totally beyond his control. But by that time, he even gave an advance of `1,50,000/- to the supplier of raw materials. Being helpless, complainant wrote a letter on 01.12.2008 to O.Ps. stating every thin in details vide annexure letter  dt. 01.12.2008. It is further stated by the complainant that even inspite of such hardship, he went on depositing bank’s interest as per their interest rate upto the month of August, 2011 and requested the O.Ps. to allow him to deposit the sale proceeds of the raw materials, so purchased, by him for the production of glass ampules as it was quite impossible for him to deposit the sale proceeds of the finished glass ampules. But O.P. 2 never paid any ear to that request and they also went on pressing upon depositing the sale proceeds of the finished glass ampoules Knowing it fully well that the production of glass ampules could never be started by the complainant. And all on a sudden on 27.12.2012 O.P.s sent one lawyer‘s letter to the complainant demanding an outstanding amount of `2,38,724/- to be deposited within 15 days vide annexure ‘C’ which was received by the complainant on 07.01.2013. Complainant replied the letter by sending one lawyer’s letter dt. 17.01.2013 stating therein that he is always ready and willing to repay the loan amount by way of giving either `1,50,000/- as one time full and final payment or `5,000/- monthly installment till the entire claim of O.Ps. never replied to that proposal. It is alleged by the complainant specifically that as the O.Ps never allowed him to deposit the sale proceeds of the raw materials, he was compelled to face a huge financial loss. On one hand, he had to repay the bank’s interest which was to the tune of `1,11,700/-till August, 2011 and on the other hand he was not allowed to utilize the working capital duly sanctioned by the O.Ps. which was lying idle in the cash / credit A/C of the complainant being 30213658068 without yielding any profit or gain. Being highly aggrieved and frustrated complainant flied this instant case praying for the aforesaid reliefs. Notices were served upon O.Ps. appeared and filed W/V.

 

 Point to be considered.

 

i)                    Is there any deficiency on the part of O.P.s.   ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

 

 

We have carefully gone through the W/V evidence and the annexure filed by O.Ps. and noted their contents. Denying all materials facts, O.Ps. have challenged the jurisdiction of this Forum to adjudicate the case. It is their case that a person who has defaulted in making bank’s due payment in time, he con not came before this Forum praying for any kind of relief and when bank has sanctioned a loan to the complainant, it is their next step to recover that amount from the borrower and that is, in no way, ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the O.Ps. It is also denied by the O.Ps. that they ever refused to accept the saleproceeds of the raw materials which could never be utilized for the production of glass ampules. At the same time O.Ps. even alleged that due to complainant’s bad intention, funds were lying idle in the cash/ credit account of the complainant. Here we take a pose.

In the very first letter of arrangement dt. 23.07.2007 we find on second page of the agreement under clause 2 that the sanctioned loan of `3,00,000/- would be available for 12 months from the date of 16.07.2007 “subject to review every 6 month”. It is our question that if complainant was a defaulter in making payment regularly  , what prompted the O.P. to renew such loan on different occasions such as on 31.07.2009, 21.04.2010 etc. And it is also admitted by O.Ps. in their written argument that complainant has paid the entire outstanding of `2,98,183/- dues, so claimed, on 30.03.2013 last. It is to be kept in mind that when banks are according financial assistance to the people, they should not become butchers, specially when a person is sincere in repayment. Bank is taking a very high rate of interest for their financial assistance. Moreover, when complainant was fairly  submitting that he could not start his production unit, he should have been allowed to release and sell the raw materials purchased by him for such production. But as the stocks i.e. the raw materials were hypothecated with the bank as ‘primary Security’, complainant was not allowed to sell those raw materials, which led to the huge burden of financial loss for the complainant. As the public money lenders, banks should always behave reasonably unlike non-banking financial companies, which is in contrary to the principle of natural justice. It is further to be mentioned here that O.Ps. have submitted account statement from 01.01.2011 to 30.06.2011 in the names of Mr. Prosanna Banerjee, Mrs. Mita Banerjee for the A/C no.30190408029 which are not matching. In the case in hand, the name of the proprietor of M/S M.P.S. glass & Co. is Mr. Sudarshan Banerjee and third party guarantor is Mrs. Mita Banerjee and A/C no. is 30213658068 O.Ps. have never sent any statement of Account showing outstanding amount with respect to the particular cash / credit Account being no. 30213658068, lying in the name of M/S M.P.S. Glass & Co. This is also deficiency on the part of O.Ps. Complainant was in dark regarding the outstanding amount. Without having the statement of account on a regular basis, complainant was asked to pay huge amount by one or two demand notice which is noting but an unfair trade practice adopted by O.Ps., which should never be allowed to be perpetuated.   O.Ps. are required to be more careful in providing service to its customers. Their wrongful action leads to the mental as well physical harassment to the consumers. O.Ps. have never furnished any account statement for the A/C no.30213658068 lying in the name of M/S M.P.S. Glass & Co., wherefrom it could have been ascertained, what was the actual outstanding amount. But complainant has paid entire outstanding amount but the harassment, he was compelled to face due to O.Ps. erratic action should be considered. And we find O.Ps. were highly negligent in discharging their duties. Accordingly the case succeeds on merit.

 

 

 

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

 

           

      That the C. C. Case No.  48 of 2013  be  allowed on contest against O.Ps.  with cost.

That the O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of `1,00,000/- as compensation and `20,000/- as litigation cost within one month from this order, i.d. the entire amount shall carry an interest @10% p.a. till actual payment.

       

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

 

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

 

 

                                                                   

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

     

                                      

                                                          

 ( Jhumki Saha )                         ( P. K. Chatterjee )                (T.K. Bhattacharya  )

 Member,                                     Member,                                President,

 C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                     C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                 C.D.R.F.,Howrah                                      

 

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE T.K. Bhattacharya]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'ABLE MR. P.K. Chatterjee]
MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MRS. Smt. Jhumki Saha]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.