Tripura

StateCommission

A/12/2019

Shri Pradip Kumar Podder. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Tapas Kr. deb, Mr. Debbabrata De, Mr. Nirnoy pul

28 Jun 2019

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.12.2019

 

1. Sri Pradip Kumar Podder,

S/o Late Moti Lal Podder,

Resident of Gangile Road, near CRU Rest House,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

District - West Tripura.

… … … … … Appellant/Complainant.

Vs

 

1. The General Manager,

Canara Bank, having its Head Office at 112 J.C. Road,

Bangalore - 560001, Karnataka.

 

2. The Chief Manager, Canara Bank,

Agartala Branch near Rajdhani Hotel, Agartala,

District - West Tripura.

 

3. The Divisional Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd.

Jiban Prakash, Meherpur, Silchar,

Assam, Pin - 788015.

 

4. The Branch Manager-1,

Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd.

HGB Road, P.O. Agartala,

District - West Tripura.

 

5. The Branch Manager-2, 

Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd.

TRTC, P.O. Agartala, Pin-799001,

District - West Tripura.

… … … … … Respondent/Opposite parties.

 

 

Present

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya,

Member,

State Commission

 

 

For the Appellant:                                           Mr. Tapas Kumar Deb, Adv.

For the Respondent No.1 & 2:                          Mr. Ranjan Bhattacharya, Adv.

For the Respondent No.3, 4 & 5:                     Mr. Prahlad Kumar Debnath, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:        28.06.2019.

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha, J,

 

The instant appeal is filed by the appellant, Sri Pradip Kumar Podder against the judgment dated 01.03.2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. C.C.18 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint petition filed by the appellant herein.

2. Heard Mr. Tapas Kumar Deb, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) as well as Mr. Ranjan Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.1 and 2/Bank) i.e. Canara Bank. Also heard Mr. Prahlad Kumar Debnath, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3, 4 and 5 (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.3, 4 and 5/LICI) i.e. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The appellant, Sri Pradip Kumar Podder being complainant filed one application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum alleging that he had taken cash credit loan from the respondent-opposite party no.2, the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Agartala Branch for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and subsequently, the loan amount had been enhanced to Rs.7,00,000/- on 23.02.2012. The loan was taken by virtue of an agreement executed between the complainant and the respondent-opposite party-Bank and that before the loan was sanctioned, the complainant had pledged his two LICI policies bearing Nos.490409484 and 490883095 with the opposite party no.1 i.e. the General Manager, Canara Bank as collateral security. As the complainant was unable to repay the loan amount regularly the loan account became NPA in the month of August, 2016. The complainant on 06.10.2016 visited the opposite party no.2, Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Agartala Branch in his Bank and proposed to the opposite party no.2 for One Time Settlement (OTS) of his outstanding loan amount and accordingly, he had filed an application on that day itself to the opposite party no.2 praying for one time settlement. According to the complainant, the opposite party no.2 had allowed his prayer by putting stamp and signature on his application. On that day, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- as OTS vide cheque No.497895 dated 06.10.2016. He has also alleged in his complaint that though he had deposited the cheque on 06.10.2016, but the same was encashed by the opposite party-Bank on 16.12.2016. The complainant thought that loan account would stand closed with the payment of Rs.1,60,000/-, but on 28.07.2017 the opposite party no.2 had requested him to come to the Bank and on his appearing the opposite party no.2  asked him to deposit further an amount of Rs.15,000/- against the loan account for final settlement and closer of the loan account which stood as NPA. Accordingly, he had deposited an amount of Rs.15,000/- on the same day by another cheque. His further case is that on 31.07.2017, the opposite party no.2 by sending a letter informed him that his aforesaid two LIC Policies deposited with the Bank as collateral security would be en-cashed so as to adjust against the outstanding loan amount by dint of premature withdrawal of both the policies. Being received the aforesaid letter from the opposite party no.2, the complainant vehemently opposed the stand taken by the Bank and also sent a protest letter on 02.08.2017 to the opposite party-LICI i.e. opposite party no.4, 5 and 6. The opposite party-LICI had allowed the opposite party no.2 for encashing the policy amount without being intimated him. He has also stated in his complaint petition that he had purchased both the LIC Policies and also deposited full premium for ensuring security of his life and also for future higher studies of his children. The maturity value of both the LIC Policies would be Rs.19,12,500/- whereas his purported outstanding loan comes to Rs.5,25,000/-. Thus, the acts of the opposite parties are nothing but deficiency of service.

4. The opposite party no.1 and 2 i.e. the Bank have contested the case by filing written objection denying any deficiency of service committed by them. They have also disputed about the claim of the complainant that his outstanding loan amount has been settled by way of one time settlement (OTS) on 06.10.2016 based on the application filed by him addressed to the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Agartala Branch (opposite party no.2). According to the opposite party no.1 and 2, the complainant's application dated 06.10.2016 for OTS had been processed for approval by the competent authority as per norms of the Bank and the same was duly conveyed to the complainant. The OTS prayer was however not approved by the higher authority of the opposite party no.2. However, they have admitted in their written objection regarding receipt of cheque amounting to Rs.1,60,000/- as well as Rs.15,000/- from the complainant and upon receipt of the aforesaid amount the same was adjusted in his loan account. They have also stated in their written objection that the complainant was very irregular in repayment of the loan amount which resulted in his becoming defaulter. The loan has become NPA on 10.07.2015. They have referred to a letter dated 31.07.2017 written by the complainant addressed to the opposite party no.2 wherein the complainant had expressed his inability to regularize the loan account  in near future, but was willing to regularize the same within five months from 31.07.2017. According to the opposite party-Bank, the complainant had aware that his prayer of OTS was not entertained by the Bank. It is the further case of the Bank that the complainant had obtained cash credit loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from them by depositing his two LIC Policies as collateral security by a loan agreement executed between the complainant and the Bank. In the loan agreement executed between the complainant and the opposite party no.2-Bank there is a specific terms and conditions that the loan sanctioning authority i.e. the Bank at any time can deal with the securities in any manner which deems fit by way of sell/surrender/close before maturity, and applying the net proceeds so realized for meeting up the borrower's liabilities.  It is also the case of the opposite party-Bank that they had issued a letter dated 31.07.2017 to the complainant prior to utilization  of the LIC Policies of the complainant for meeting up the outstanding loan amount of the complainant. Thus there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party-Bank.
5. The opposite party no.3, 4 and 5 also contested the case and denied the allegation of the complainant. Opposite party-LICI in their written objection specifically stated that the complainant had assigned both his LIC Policies in favour of the opposite party-Canara Bank at the time of taking cash credit loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from the Bank. Hence, the opposite party-LICI denied any deficiency of service on their part towards the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them.
6. Complainant had examined himself as one of the witnesses and also produced some documents which were marked as Exhibit-I series. 
7. On the other hand, opposite parties also examined their respective witnesses and submitted some documents which were marked as Exhibit-A series and Exhibit-B series.
8. Considering the evidence on record and the documents as available, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint petition as stated (supra).
9. Mr. Deb, Ld. Counsel while urging for allowing the appeal would contend that though the complainant had not deposited both the polices as collateral security, then also, the Bank Authority surrendered both the policies before the LICI and encashed the premature value of both the policies even after one time settlement. He has again submitted that before surrendering the policy with the LICI, the Bank did not inform him though he was informed by the Bank subsequently. He has further submitted that if the opposite party-Bank informed the complainant before realization of the policy amount, he could have satisfied the Bank demand.  
10. Per contra, Mr. Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that the learned District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint petition particularly, when the complainant did not approach the Forum with clean hand. In his complaint petition, he had alleged figuring of the word ‘allowed’ on the photocopy of the application dated 06.10.2016, but the said word ‘allowed’ is not available in the original application submitted by the complainant before the opposite party no.2, Chief Manager, Canara Bank. He has also taken us to the impugned judgment wherein the learned District Forum noted, inter alia, that “We have closely examined the photocopy of the application and the original application dated 06/10/2016 filed by the Complainant. We do not find the word “allowed” on the original application dated 06/10/2016 filed by the complainant addressed to the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Agartala (Exhibit-B series) wherein he had proposed for OTS in respect of his outstanding loan amount. This discrepancy as surfaced in this regard appears to us is series (sic) and it also casts doubt about the claim of the Complainant that his prayer of OTS has ever been allowed by the O.P. No.2. We also find that the Complainant in his cross-examination which was made on behalf of the O.P. Canara Bank has stated that he could not say who wrote his application wherein he had prayed for one time settlement of his outstanding loan.  It is an admitted fact that the cash credit loan which was obtained by the Complainant from the O.P. Canara Bank had been turned into NPA in the month of August, 2016 as the Complainant has been found to be irregular in repayment of his loan and had become defaulter since long. From the statement of account in respect of the loan account of the complainant furnished by the O.P. Canara Bank which has been marked Exhibit-B series it is found that on 31/10/2016 an amount Rs.7,94,220/-  has been figured as outstanding dues in the loan account of the complainant. So it is quite improbable that the O.P. Canara Bank being a financial organization would accept the OTS prayer of the Complainant on receiving Rs.1,60,000/- from the complainant when his outstanding loan stood at Rs.7,94,200/-.”
11. Mr. Debnath, Ld. Counsel while adopting the submission of Mr. Bhattacharjee would contend that once the policy holder deposited the policy before the Bank or any other authority as collateral security against the loan received, then he had no right to the policy before clearing the dues of the said authority. He has further submitted in the instant case that the complainant deposited his policies with the Bank as collateral security against the loan and thus the opposite party-Bank has the right to withdraw or encash the policy amount even before the policy is matured without any notice to the complainant being those policies are the property of the Bank. He has finally submitted that when the policy holder like the complainant deposited his policies as collateral security to the Bank, then the LIC is not bound to inform the policy holder regarding the encashment of the policy amount, but in the instant case that was also done. He has taken us to the agreement between the complainant and the Bank wherein it is stated that “I/We agree that any payment made by Insurance Company are assigned in your favour and the same shall be directly credited to the 2348261010434 loan A/c and the balance in the said loan account shall correspondingly stand reduced.”
12. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as evidence on record particularly Paragraph-5 of the complaint petition, wherein it is specifically stated that both the policies of the complainant were deposited to the Bank as collateral security which would be encashed and would be adjusted against the loan account by premature withdrawal of the policies. We have further gone through the agreement between the complainant and the Bank, particularly, sub-clause (e) of clause-16 of the Agreement wherein it is specifically stated “That the Bank shall be entitled at all times and without any notice to the Borrower to set off and apply any other money or monies in the hands of the Bank standing to the credit of or belonging to the Borrower in or towards payments of any amount at any time being payable to the Bank or towards the outstandings in the said cash credit accounts or as otherwise aforesaid and to recover at any time from the Borrower by suit or otherwise the balance remaining payable to the Bank under the said cash credit account/s or otherwise notwithstanding that all or any of the securities may be outstanding and/or may not have been realized.”  
13. We have also gone through the copy of the application submitted by the complainant before the learned District Forum as well as the original application for one time settlement which was submitted to the Bank and after going through the aforesaid documents we found that in the original document there is no such remark “allowed” of one time settlement. Not only that, even in the application there is no mention that the Bank Authority at any point of time requested the complainant for one time settlement of his loan account.  

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the learned District Forum rightly considered the evidence on record and dismissed the complaint petition filed by the complainant, the appellant herein. There is no necessity to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the Learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura