DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO:  CC – 107  of   2017

 

Sri Pradip Shil,

S/O- Late Pramode Shil,

Gurkhabasti, P.O. Kathal Bagan,

Agartala, West Tripura. ........…...Complainant.

 

 

             -VERSUS-

 

     1. Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Head Office-Post Office Chowmuhani,

Agartala, West Tripura.

  Through the General Manager,

 

     2. Branch Manager,

Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Secretariat Branch, Office Lane, 

Agartala, West Tripura. ........... Opposite Parties.

 

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

 

 SRI A. PAL,

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 Prabal Kr. Ghosh,

  Sri Kajal Nandi,

  Advocate.

 

For the O.Ps : Sri Gouri Sankar Bhatttacharjee,

  Sri  Manoj Debnath,

  Advocates.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  13.03.2018.

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed by one Pradip Shil U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that he applied for loan for small business to the O.P. under PMEGP Scheme. Industry department intimated him for taking the loan for setting up a business of decorator. Industry department promised to pay subsidy of the loan. O.P. Bank sanctioned loan Rs.3 lacs. Out of Rs.3 lacs, Rs.2,85,000/- was paid and Rs.15,000/- was deducted as margin money. Petitioner purchased many articles from Barnali Stores and other shops for the business but payment was not made by the O.P. bank. O.P. bank fixed the installment Rs.6,485/- which was excessive. Complainant pay installment regularly and Rs.1,27,185/- was paid. But O.P. demanded higher amount without deducting the subsidy amount Rs.1,05,000/- paid by the Industry department. Complainant in total paid Rs.1,80,000/- approximately. Inspite of that O.P. demanded more amount and petitioner could not run the business due to deficiency of service by O.P. Petitioner claimed compensation Rs.5,50,000/- along with cost of litigation. 

 

2. O.P. No.1 and 2 appeared appeared filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that Rs.2,85,000/- was sanctioned as loan against the project of Rs.3 lacs. Rs.15,000/- was the own capital which O.P. is to pay.  The amount is to be paid within 60 installments. As per agreement Rs. 1,0,5,000/- was the subsidy amount to be paid by Kahdi & Village Industry  and Khadi & Village Industry paid Rs.75,000/- not Rs.1,05,000/-. The complainant in violation of terms and condition of loan agreement diverted the business of decorator unit to other grocery unit without prior intimation. Total due of the complainant was Rs.1,42,874/-. Complainant was given one time opportunity to settle. But he did not take up any step for settlement only to harass the bank. There was no deficiency of service by the bank authority. 

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination:

(i) Whether the O.P. bank demanded excessive amount from the petitioner and has deficiency of service?

(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to get compensation from the O.P.?

 

4. Petitioner produced the photocopy of certificate of sponsorship, letters, loan Agreement, voucher of Barnali Stores, receipts, loan Statement, Pass Book, Statement of Loan Account, original loan sanction memo, expense letters, cash memo, field enquiry report, loan account. 

Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of petitioner.

 

5. O.P. on the other hand produced the Loan Sanction Memo, Letters of utilization, Letters, Current Account Statement. Statement on affidavit of one witness, Mritwika Debbarma, Gr-IV Officer of O.P. Bank. 

 

6. We have gone through all the documents and evidence and now decide the above points.

 

 

Findings and decision:

 

7. We have gone through the loan agreement signed by both the petitioner and O.P. and found that project cost was Rs.3 lacs and bank loan sanctioned was Rs.2,85,000/- not Rs.3 lacs as claimed. It is admitted fact that O.P. bank sanctioned loan amount Rs.2,85,000/- and petitioner had to invest Rs.15,000/-.

 

8. From the statement of loan account it is found that on 04.03.14 Rs.1 lacs was disbursed and on 10.12.14 Rs.1,85,000/- was disbursed. So, Rs.2,85,000/- was disbursed by the O.P. bank. On 16.09.14 subsidy  Rs.75,000/- was paid by Khadi & Village Industry. So, Khadi and Village Industry did not pay Rs.1,0,5,000/- as stated by the petitioner. 

 

9. Mritwika Debbarma, O.P.W.1 stated that sanction letter was accepted with all terms and conditions by the petitioner. He was defaulter when he was asked to repay the due installments. The defaulted amount was deducted. On 12.10.17 joint field enquiry was made and found that complainant misused the entire loan amount and did not set up the business of decorator and total due comes to Rs.1,42,874/-.

 

10. Petitioner Pradip Shil stated that O.P. bank had taken Rs.51,880/- for depositing of balance amount Rs.1,85,000/- but this is not found in the statement of account. Rs.1 lac was deducted as installment which was not paid regularly by the petitioner.

 

11. From the statement of account it is found that till 10.12.14 after 9 months of receiving the first installment no amount was paid by the petitioner. With interest balance was  Rs.32,640/- on 10.12.14. On 10.12.14 Rs.1,85,000/- was disbursed and on the same date and defaulted installment amount Rs.51,880/- was deducted. Petitioner did not pay 3 installments thereafter. But installment of Rs.6500/- was paid on 09.03.15. Thereafter did not paid 2 installments. On 30.05.15 he paid Rs.12,000/- and thereafter did not pay 8 installments. From 30.05.17 again he did not pay 7 installments.

 

12. From the scrutiny of the statement of accounts it is found that out of 60 installments he did not pay about 30 installments. For such default the loan amount on collection of interest increased. For non payment of subsidy amount about Rs.25,000/- O.P. bank is not liable. O.P. bank received Rs.75,000/- from the Khadi & Village Industry so rest amount petitioner is duty bound to pay as promised by him.  He is to follow the loan agreement strictly.

 

13. From the scrutiny of the documents on record and evidence we found that no deficiency of service by the O.P. bank. As a result petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation he is to pay the installment of the loan and the bank can take step for collection of the amount taken by the petitioner as loan. This petition has no merit and therefore dismissed. No cost.   

 

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

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