Order No. 14 dt. 27/07/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant, proprietor of Singh Leather,a business enterprise, started business in the year 2004 through an existing loan account no.20107 at Syndicate Bank, 518, Lake Gardens, Kolkata-700095. For securitization of the loan sanctioned to the complainant, the Bank authority Kept deposited 1) Two original KissanVikashPatras having sl.no.08CDJJ2595 and 2596, value of each of Rs.10,000/- in the name of the complainant along with one LIC Policy which subsequently transferred in Vikash Cash Certificate having maturity value of Rs.1,83,585/- as on 03.01.2015 and original deed of landed property measuring 3 cottah near Sonarpur, 24-Parganas (South).
Since the said two 5.5 years KissanVikash Patra had got matured on May 25,2010 and the complainant had been proven to be a bonafide & regular customer of the Bank in respect of his loan account, Bank might take necessary action to retrieve the KVPs. Complainant, consequently, requested the concerned branch of the Bank to allow him to draw out the matured value Rs.40,000/- with accrued interest thereon ( maturity value-Rs.20,000/- x 2). But the Bank authority did not pay heed to the request of the complainant. Lawyer’s notice was also served upon the Deputy General Manager and the Chief Manager of Syndicate Bank. But no tangible solution had been rendered by the Bank. Finding no other alternative complainant lodged this complaint praying the following directions (1) payment of Rs.40,000/- the matured value of the KVPs with interest of Rs.24,500/- (2) compensation of Rs.85,000/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
O.p. contested the case by submitting w/v. Ld. Lawyer of the o.p. denied and disputed all allegationsagainst the o.p. The petition of complaint is prima facie not maintainable as the complainant has been sanctioned a loan for business purposes and business bank account does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the matter Subhas Motilal Shah (HUF) – Dead through LRS + others – Vs-Malegaon Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd., reported in 2013 (2) CPRI (NC) has been referred to look into.This complaint case is also bad for the non-joinder of the necessary party as the Tollygunge Head Post Office, which has issued the KVP and is liable to make paymentof the same has not been madeaparty in this complaint case. Post Master of the said post office has failed to return the KisanVikash Patra in response to the continuous effort of the o.p.Bank. Tollygunge Head Post Office in their letter no.TLG/S.B/GENL/03/13-14 dated 06.03.2014 admitted such efforts of correspondences by the o.p.1,which remained unsuccessful due to inactionof the Tollygunge Post Office. However, complainant is entitled to a refund of Rs.40,000/- being the maturity value of the KVP which the post office is liable to pay to the complainant as per the required norms of the post office. It is relevant to point out that the KVP was lost at the end of the post office. And the post office is liable to pay the same on the basis of indemnity filed by the o.p.1. However, it is denied that the complainant is liable to get interest @ 15% per annum amounting to Rs.24,500/- and compensation of Rs.85,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-. It is relevant to point out that the complainant should take up the matter with Tollygunge Post Office for redressal of grievances. The reliefs sought deserves to be rejected as because the complainant claimed repeated reliefs regarding rate of interest, compensation, damages etc. The claims made are arbitrary, inflated. Under the facts and circumstances,the complaint case be dismissed with costs.
Complainant has argued that his leather business is a proprietorship enterprise for the livelihood of his family. It is admitted fact that two KishanVikashPatras had been kept by the Bank under their custody and control. Whether it had been lost or misplaced that is not the question to the complainant. The liability of the bank as a custodian of the two KissanVikash Patra for security of the loan sanctioned can not be avoided by the bank.
On the basis of the pleading of the parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the KVPs had been sent by the Bank to the Tallygunge Post Office?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops?
- Whether thecomplainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
All points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
We have gone through the complaint petition, arguments and the materials on record.
It is an admitted fact that two original KissanVikashPatras, oneoriginal LIC Policy anda original title deed of a land property measuring 3 Cottahs, all were in the name of the complainant and those had been deposited as a co-lateral Security of the loan which had been sanctioned in favour of his personal business. The values of the KishanVikasPatras, the LIC policy and the land property of 3 cottahs’ at Sonarpur, South 24 Parganas in the year 2004 had been estimated by the Bank before sanction of loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in the business of the borrower.
For securitization of the loan from bad debt even the two KisanVikasPatras, each of Rs.10,000/-along with a LIC policy and a deed of land of 3 cottah at Sonarpur area were kept by the Bank from which the capacity of the leather business can be estimated. The three securities, namely KVPs, LIC policy and deed of land, all these were in the name of the owner of the business and the loan had been sanctioned & invested inthat business, the proprietorship of which had been in none other than the name of the borrower of the loan. Complainant stated that his leather business was an enterprise for the livelihood of his family. It is admitted fact that two KishanVikashPatras had been kept by the Bank under their custody and control. Whether it had been lost or misplaced that is not the question to the complainant. The liability of the bank as a temporary custodian of the two KissanVikash Patra can not be avoided by the bank.
5½ year KVPs were issued on 25.09.2002 which subsequently transformed to 7yrs 8 months KVP; thus maturity date was on 25.09.2010,afterwhich bank authorities was unable to hand over the KVPs to the complainant. Finding no immediate retrieval of the KVPs complainant submitted a proposal to the bank on 04.02.2013 his willingness to keep the matured value of the two KVP be fixed at the branch of the Syndicate Bank. But such proposal was fulfilled and thereafter, complainant requested, time and again, bank authorities for absolving the KVP-securities on 27.09.2013 and 30.09.2013, 20.11.2013, 29.11.2013, 12.12.2013. In the mean time o.p.1 had lodged G.D.entry 1312 dated 16.07.2012 with O/C, Lake, Police Station and subsequently Post Master, Tollygunge Head Post office by its letter dtd. 06.03.2014 confirmed that the said KVP Certificates still remains in the name of the holder Sri Mohan Singh saggu. Thus, it transpires that the same were lost.
No plea cannot be entertained in handing over the said security to the owner if there is no objection in respect of his loan account. Obviously, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in handing over the two KishanVikashPatras to the owner on due date of maturity i.e. 25th May,2010 or immediately thereafter.
In CPJ 28 (NC) IV(2016) National Commission inferred that loss of mortgage document from the custody of the Bank is deficiency in service. Loss of documents of ownership is not a venial and trivial matter. Bank is terribly remiss in discharge of its duty.
In CPJ 433 (NC) (IV) 2015, National Commission inferred that respondent/complainant purchased JCB machine against a sum of Rs.18,50,593.87 for his livelihood by means of self employment and the complaint was maintainable.Here, inthis case, complainant drew loan of Rs.2 lakh against depositof 2 KVS each of Rs.10,000/- a LIC Policy and land of 3 cottah all are in the name of the borrower and the loan had been invested in borrower’s proprietorship enterprise in the name of the borrower.
In CPJ 386 (NC) 2016 NC inferred that loss of bank draft in transit from the Bank amounts to deficiency in service. Compensation and litigation cost were awarded.
From the date of maturity to the date of lodging complaint , the complainant anxiously waited for the positive action from the Bank in resolving the problem in respect of a regular customer of the Bank. O.p.1 could have admitted of their negligence of duty in losing the KVPs from their own custody. Rather, they,strongly, opposed the allegation of the complainant. During the proceeding of the case o.p.1 supported their own negligence against the cost of its customer. Bank should not be absolved by it’s liability of the KVP as a custodian.
Considering the above points in view we hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the bank and complainant is, therefore, entitled to get relief as ordered hereunder.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.588/2014 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.p is directed to pay Rs.40,000/ ( Rupees forty thousand ) only as maturity value of the KVPs as on 25.09.2010 with Interest thereafter @5% p.a and compensation of Rs.10,000/-( Rupees forty thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
