DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 18 of 2018

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,

Dist.-West Tripura    .…..............…..........................Complainant.

 

            -VERSUS-

 

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,

Dist.-West Tripura,  ......................................... Opposite parties.

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Tapas Kr. Deb,

  Sri Debabrata De,

  Advocates.  

For the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 : Sri Ranjan Bhattacharya,

  Sri Basudev Chakraborty,

  Smt. Ishhita Chakraborty(Kar)

  Advocates.  

For the O.P. Nos. 3,4 & 5 : Sri P. K. Debnath,

  Advocate.                                                                                                                                 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 01/03/2019

J U D G M E N T

The complainant Sri Pradip Kumar Podder, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 complaining deficiency of service by the O.Ps. 

  The complainant's case in brief is that the Complainant had taken cash credit loan from the O.P. No.2, the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Agartala Branch under A/C No.2348261010434 on 28/12/2010 initially for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-(Rupees three lac fifty thousand) only and subsequently the loan amount had been enhanced to Rs.7,00,000/- lac on 23/02/2012. The loan was taken by virtue of an agreement executed between the complainant and the O.P. Bank and that before the loan was sanctioned the Complainant had pledged his two LICI policies bearing Nos.490409484 and 490883095 with the O.P. No.1 as collateral security. As the Complainant was unable to repay the loan amount regularly due to unable circumstances suffered by him the loan had become NPA in the month of August,2016. The complainant on 06/10/2016 visited the O.P. No.2 in his Bank and proposed to the O.P. No.2  for one time settlement(OTS) of his outstanding loan amount. He had accordingly filed an application on the same day addressed to the O.P. No.2 praying for one time settlement(OTS) of the loan. Accordingly to the Complainant the O.P. 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 alleged in his complaint that though he had deposited the cheque on 06/10/2016 but it was en-cashed by the O.P. Bank on 16/12/2016. The complainant thought that loan account would stand closed with the payment of Rs.1,60,000/- which was made by him but to his surprise the O.P. No.2 on 28/07/2017 had requested him to come to the Bank and that on his appearing before the O.P. No.2, the O.P.  asked him to deposit further amount of Rs.15,000/- against the loan account for final settlement and closer of the loan account which stood as NPA. The complainant accordingly on the same day deposited another cheque vide No.497826 dated 28/07/2017 for an amount of Rs.15,000/-. He further stated in his complaint that on 31/07/2017 the O.P. N.O.2 by sending a letter informed him that his two LICI policies vide No.490883095 and vide No.490409484 which had been 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. Having had received the letter from the O.P. No.2 the complainant vehemently opposed the stand taken by the Bank. He also sent a protest letter dated 02/08/2017 to the O.P. LICI who had allowed the O.P. No.2 for getting both his LIC policies en-cashed behind his back without being intimated to him by them (the O.P. LICI). The Complainant has asserted in his complaint that he had purchased both the LIC Policies and also deposited full premium for ensuring security of his life and also for future higher education of his children. But due to deficiency of service of the O.P. LICI as well as the O.P. Bank he has suffered of financial loss and also mental agony. According to the complainant the maturity value of both the LIC Policies would be Rs.19,12,500/- where as his purported outstanding loan comes to Rs.5,25,000/-. 

 

The complainant has thus filed this complaint against the O.P. No. 1 to 5 alleging of deficiency of service and prayed for granting him compensation of Rs.19,92,500/-.

Hence this case. 

The O.P. Nos. 1&2 have contested the case by filing written objection denying any deficiency of service committed by them towards the Complainant.   The O.Ps. have 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(O.P. No.2). According to the O.P. Nos.1&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 O.P. No.2. The O.Ps.  however have admitted about receipt of cheque amounting to Rs.1,60,000/- from the complainant and adjustment of said amount against the loan account of the complainant. They have also admitted deposit of Rs.15,000/- by the complainant and adjustment of the said amount against the loan account of the Complainant. The O.Ps. 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 became NPA on 10/07/2015. The O.Ps. have referred to a letter dated 31/07/2017 written by the complainant addressed to the O.P. No.2 wherein the complainant had expressed his in ability to regularize the loan account  in near future but was willing to regularize the same within five(05) months from 31/07/2017. According to the O.Ps. from the said letter of the  Complainant it transpires that the complainant had aware that his prayer of OTS was not entertained by the Bank. The O.Ps.  further stated in their W.O. that the Complainant had obtained cash credit loan of Rs.7,00000/- from the O.P. No.2 by depositing his two LIC policies bearing No.490409484 & 490883095 as collateral security  by a loan agreement executed between the complainant & the O.P. No.2 acknowledging it's terms and conditions that the loan sanctioning authority (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.  According to the O.Ps. 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.  The O.Ps. have denied that the OTS as prayed for by the Complainant had ever been approved by the O.P. Bank. According to the O.Ps. the Complainant for his illegal gain had written the word “allowed” on the body of the written petition dated 06/10/2016 seeking for OTS of his outstanding loan. 

The O.P. Nos.1&2 denying any deficiency of service committed by them have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.     

The O.P. Nos.-3,4&5 have also contested the case of the Complainant by filing written objection denying any deficiency of service by them towards the Complainant. The O.Ps. have stated in their written objection that the complainant had assigned both his LIC policies in favour of the O.P. Canara Bank at the time of taking cash credit loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from the Bank and that in view of absolute assignment, the O.P. Canara Bank had been vested with the power to deal with the policies for meeting up the outstanding dues of the loan amount of the Complainant and also that as per written application dated 26/07/2017 of the O.P. Canara Bank and as prayed for by the said Bank, the surrender value of both the policies got credited into the account of the O.P. Bank. The O.Ps. have further stated in their written objection that because of the absolute assignment, the assignee Bank has inherited all rights and privilege of the assignor(the complainant) and that the assignee has absolute authority to deal with the assigned policy and the O.P. LICI had to settle the matter as per rights and desire of the assignee Bank. It is also stated by the O.Ps. that acting upon the claim papers received from the O.P. Canara Bank and in compliance with the letter dated 26/07/2017 of the assignee Bank and that upon evaluation, the surrender value of the LIC policies was settled with the O.P. Canara Bank. Thus the O.P. LICI has no liability to indemnify the Complainant. 

The O.Ps. have thus denied any deficiency of service on their part towards the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them.    

2. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:

In support of the Complaint, the Complainant has Examined himself as PW-1 and produced 10 documents namely Letters, Advocate notice, Premium receipts & Reply under RTI furnished by LICI. The documents are marked  Exhibit-I series. 

On behalf of the O.P. Nos. -3,4&5 one witness namely Sri Pankaj Kumar Roy Chowdhury, Branch Manager, LICI, Agartala Branch-II has been examined. He has produced 08 documents namely Status Report, Report of NEFT payment, Surrender payment vouchers in Policy No.490883095 of 08/08/2017, Surrender voucher of  Canara Bank, Policy No.490883095 of dated 20/12/2000 and Status Report of Policy No.490409484. These documents are marked Exhibit-A series. 

On behalf of the O.P. Nos.-1&2 one witness namely Sri Avinash Kumar, Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Banamalipur, Agartala has been examined. The said witness has adduced 06 documents comprising 29 sheets namely Original letter dated 06/10/2017 of the Complainant, Original Advocate notice dated 27/07/2017 of the Complainant, original reply of advocate's notice dated 17/01/2018 with postal receipt, Original letter dated 31/07/2017 issued by the Canara Bank, Original letter dated 31/07/2017 issued by the Complainant and Original Bank Statement. The documents have been marked Exhibit-B series. 

Be it mentioned here that in this case the Complainant, the O.P. Nos. 1&2 and the O.P. Nos.-3,4&5 have submitted their written arguments.

 POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

3.  Based on the contentions raised by both the parties the following issues are made for determination:  

   (I). Whether  the proposal made by the complainant to the O.P. Cannara Bank for one time settlement(OTS) of his outstanding cash credit loan has been accepted or not by the O.P. Canara Bank ?

    (ii). Whether there is any deficiency of service committed by the O.P. Cannara Bank and the O.P. LICI towards the Complainant?

     (iii). Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any  compensation/relief ?

 

 

 

4. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

  It is evident from the case record that there is no denial by the Complainant and the O.P. Canara Bank about taking of cash credit loan amounting to Rs.7,00,000/- by the complainant. It is further evident from the case record that the loan had turned into NPA in the month of August, 2016 as the Complainant was found irregular in repayment of the loan amount since long. 

  We have gone through the written arguments placed before us by the Complainant, the O.P. Canara Bank and the O.P. LICI and also considered them.  

  The case of the Complainant is that his prayer as to the offer of  one time settlement(OTS) in respect of his outstanding loan had been allowed by the O.P. No.2, the Chief Manager, Canara Bank based on his application dated 06/10/2016. In this connection he has relied on photocopy copy of his application dated 06/10/2016 addressed to the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Agartala wherein the word “allowed” has been figured on left side top of his application under Exhibit-I series. The Complainant has contended that on the same day he had deposited one cheque valued Rs.1,60,000/- for settlement of the loan. Subsequently the Complainant again deposited Rs.15,000/- by another cheque on 28/07/2017 as per request of the O.P. No.2. 

    The O.P. Canara Bank on the other hand opposed the plea of the Complainant about the acceptance of one time settlement(OTS). According to the O.P. Canara Bank the Chief Manager(O.P. No.2) does not have power to allow one time settlement of loan because as per the Bank's norms the offer of OTS requires to be processed for getting approval of the competent authority at Regional Office, Silchar. 

  The O.P. Canara Bank has also disputed about the alleged figuring of the word “allowed” on the photocopy application dated 06/10/2016 of the complainant(Exhibit-I series). The O.P. Canara Bank has produced the original application dated 06/10/2016 filed by the complainant and has relied in this case which has been marked Exhibit-B series. 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 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/-. Moreover, for the sake of argument if the O.P. Canara Bank had satisfied with the offer of Rs.1,60,000/- as one time settlement why then the Complainant had deposited Rs.15,000/- more to the Bank in addition to Rs.1,60,000/-. This aspect also raises a doubt about the claim of the Complainant that his proposal for OTS has been accepted by the O.P. Canara Bank. It is also improbable that the O.P. No.2 as the Chief Manager of the Bank would instantly allowed OTS prayer of the Complainant ignoring the guidelines of the Bank and also having had aware about the outstanding loan amount of the Complainant which stood at more than Rs. 7,00,000/-. 

    In view of the discussion made above and having regard to the evidence available on record we are of the opinion that the O.P. Canara Bank has not accepted the proposal of OTS made by the Complainant for his outstanding cash credit loan. 

    The issue no. (i) is accordingly decided against the Complainant but in favour of the O.P. Nos. 1&2.   

    It reveals from the case record i.e. from the loan agreement entered into between the complainant and the O.P. No.2 as well as also from the cross-examination parts of the Complainant and that of the OPW-2 that the Complainant while taking the cash credit loan of Rs.7,00,000/- had pledged his two LIC policies vide No.490409484 and No.490883095 with the O.P. Canara Bank as securities. As per the terms and conditions in the loan agreement, the O.P. Canara Bank had been vested with the authority at any time to deal with the securities in any manner the said Bank authority deem fit-sell/surrender/close before maturity, and apply the net proceeds so realized to the Borrower's liabilities and the appropriation so effected by shall confer valid discharge on the Bank. 

    It is well established that the Complainant has become a defaulter in the matter of repayment of his cash credit loan and the loan had already become NPA. In such a situation the O.P. Canara Bank has as per the terms and conditions in the loan agreement and that of the undertaking given by the Complainant as to the securities furnished by him i.e. his two LIC policies pledged with the Bank, had rightly resorted to utilize the surrender value of the two LIC policies with the help of O.P. Nos.3,4&5. It is found that out of the two policies Rs.6,73,963/-(Rs.66,538/- from Policy No.490409484.  & Rs.6,07,425/- from Policy No.490883095) had been credited to the loan account of the Complainant. As the both the LIC policies had been assigned by the policy holder Complainant in favour of the O.P. Bank as securities, all rights and privileges of the policies have been vested with the O.P. Canara Bank. 

      Hence, we find that O.P. LICI did not committee any deficient act by acting upon the letter of the O.P. Cananra Bank dated 26/07/2017 (under Exhibit-A series) in transferring the surrender value of the two LIC policies in the loan account of the complainant which has been maintained by the O.P. Canara Bank. 

    In view of discussion made above we find that neither the O.P. Nos. 1&2 nor the O.P. Nos.3,4&5 commit any deficiency of service towards the Complainant. According to us recovery of the loan by the Bank is within the commercial judgment of the Bank and that it will not be wise on our part to interfere in the matter in the factual situation of the present case. The complainant according to us is not entitled to get any compensation from the O.Ps. 

    The issue nos. (ii) & (iii) are accordingly decided against the Complainant but in favour of the O.Ps. 

      Be it mentioned here that from the statement of loan account of the Complainant under Exhibit-B series it is found that Rs.54,458.79/- is still showing outstanding dues as on 30/06/2018 against the Complainant. 

    In view of the discussion made above we find and hold that the complainant has not succeeded in establishing his case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by him against the Opposite Parties. 

5. In the result, we are constrained to hold that the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the O.Ps. as he has failed to make out a case U/S 12 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.Ps.  There is no deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps.  to the Complainant. 

  The Complaint filed by Sri Pradip Kumar Podder is thus dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we are not inclined to give any costs. 

 

ANNOUNCED

 

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

 WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.