C.F. CASE No.          : CC/09/63                                                                                                          

 

COMPLAINANT             :  Smt. Rina Dutta,

W/o Sri Mukta Ranjan Dutta,

4, M.M. Ghosh Street,

P.O. Krishnagar,

P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia 

Pin – 741101, West Bengal

 

       –  Vs.  – 

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs   : 1.  The Manager,

Allahabad Bank

2, Netaji Subhas Road,

Calcutta - 700001

 

             : 2. The Manager

Allahabad Bank

R.N. Tagore Road Branch

P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,

Dist. Nadia, Pin – 741101 

West Bengal

 

 

PRESENT              :  KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY             PRESIDENT

        :  KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY          MEMBER

        :  SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA       MEMBER  

 

DATE OF DELIVERY             

OF  JUDGMENT               :    13th November, 2009.

 

 

:    J U D G M E N T    :

 

In brief, the case of the complainant is that under the cash credit limit of 

Page 2 of 6

Rs. 2,00,000/- at the margin rate of 25% and interest at P.L.R. with a minimum of 11% p.a. along with a collateral security of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the double deposit plan under the five years term deposit scheme loan amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was sanctioned by the OP in favour of the complainant.   At the time of sanction loan, this complainant also hypothecated some machinery with the OP Bank.   An agreement was executed by the parties to that extent also.  As per terms and conditions, the fixed deposit amount of Rs. 1,31,407/- belonging to the petitioner was matured on 15.03.09.  On 18.03.09 the complainant requested the OP Bank to credit matured amount of fixed deposit in the cash credit account and also to send the detailed computer statement of account report regarding the balance dues.  Payment of the cash credit limit of Rs. 2,00,000/- which is payable subject to terms & conditions.  The Bank authority handed over the written statement of account report to the petitioner on 04.04.09 which was an incorrect one.   Again on 15.04.09 she requested the OP to send a correct computer statement of account report regarding the balance dues payment of the cash credit limit of Rs. 2,00,000/- which is payable subject to terms & conditions.  In spite of receipt of notice the Bank authority did not correct the defective computerized statement of account report.  Bank authority also did not maintain the margin rate of 25% to the sanctioned amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and did not maintain the rate of interest i.e. 11 % per annum.   So having no other alternative this case is filed praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of the complaint.

The OP, Allahabad Bank has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature.   It is his contention that this complainant availed the cash credit loan on and from 25.03.04 but did not pay interest and original regularly for which the said loan account became N.P.A.   In 2009 this complainant sent a letter to this OP, inter alia, requesting to adjust the matured fixed deposit amount with her loan amount.  

Page 3 of 6

Thereafter, the Bank authority adjusted the said fixed amount of Rs. 1,31,407/- against her loan.  This OP also submits that margin money is always paid by the borrower before enjoying loan facility and it is the duty of the borrower to show that for the purpose of business he / she  invested 25% of the total amount in kind or in cash and this OP Bank is not at all responsible for the margin money.  This Bank suffered huge loss for nonpayment of the loan amount as this complainant is a defaulter borrower.  This OP is always ready to correct the statement of account after any error is detected.   So this complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the the same is liable to be dismissed against him.

 

POINTS  FOR  DECISION

 

Point No.1: Has the complainant became able to prove her case?

Point No.2:         Is she entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

 

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience. 

On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint along with the annexed documents and the written version filed by the OP and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for both the parties it is available on record that the complainant under the cash credit limit of Rs. 2,00,000/- at the margin rate of 25% and interest @ 11% per annum along with a collateral security of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards a double deposit plan, a loan amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the complainant by the OP on 24.03.04.   To that extent an agreement was signed by and between the parties vide Annexure – 1.  This cash credit loan was 

Page 4 of 6

sanctioned against hypothecation of stock of goods belonging to the complainant.  It is the only case of the complainant that the fixed deposit amount was matured in 2009,   when he asked the OP to repay the said amount, but the OP did not repay him.  Only he furnished incorrect statement of his cash credit loan account.   From the Annexure – 1, it is available that there was a provision of margin  25% at the time of granting loan in case of advance against stocks.  In the instant case the complainant has not produced any document to show that about 25% of the margin he deposited goods before the Bank or paid the amount in cash, though as per Banking rule, it is the duty of the borrower to show that for the purpose of business he / she  invested 25% of the total amount in kind or in cash as to margin money before enjoying the loan facility.  

At page, 757 of Tannan's Banking Law and Practice in India, 'Margin' is explained as “It is, therefore necessary that the lending banker should insist upon getting securities worth more than the amount of the loan or overdrawn he is called upon to grant.  This differences between the market value of the securities and the amount lent against them is known as the margin.”  Nowhere it is stated that the margin amount is payable to the borrower by the Bank.  From the documents it is clear that this complainant neither deposited the margin amount either in kind or in cash.  Even there is no whisper in the petition of complaint in which form she deposited the margin amount though she claims the said amount.  It is available on record that the complainant enjoyed the facility of Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash credit loan system from the OP, but she did not repay any amount before the OP within the stipulated period of one year as per terms & conditions of the agreement (Annexure – 1).    The fixed deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- was a collateral security.  This complainant remained silent for a long period and when the fixed deposit amount became matured he demanded for statement of cash credit account and also repayment of the fixed deposit amount.  At the same time, at para – 5 of his petition it is 

Page 5  of 6

categorically stated by the complainant that she agrees to pay the balance dues payment of the cash credit limit of Rs. 2,00,000/- @ 11% interest per annum which is payable subject to terms & conditions.  This 11% interest is also mentioned in the agreement vide Annexure – 1 which is at per at the P.L.R. with a minimum of 11% per annum with monthly rests.  So the interest amount is to be paid by the borrower complainant for the cash credit loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- taken by her from the OP Bank.  From the record we have found that this complainant did not repay any loan amount within the stipulated period as mentioned in the agreement but she already enjoyed cash credit loan facility of Rs. 2,00,000/-.   So she is bound to pay interest for that amount.  As per the demand of the complainant computerized statement of the cash credit account was delivered by the OP Bank to her vide Annexure – 9.   Ld. lawyer  for the complainant submits that this statement is not a correct one, but he has not pointed out the exact error of the statement.  We have scrutinized the statement.  The statement was issued from 31.03.06 to 29.03.09.  In the statement it is also categorically stated that no interest was charged from 01.03.08 to 31.05.09 as the cash credit account became NPA, but as per Banking rule interest accrued on the unpaid dues which is called uncharged interest and that amount stood at Rs. 34,853/-.  From this Annexure – 9, it is available that the due amount on 23.03.09 was Rs. 86,770/- + uncharged interest amount is Rs. 34,853/-, i.e the total amount being Rs. 1,21,623/- which is still due and outstanding on behalf of the complainant.   Through Annexure – 10, in another computer statement it is shown regarding the uncharged interest of Rs. 34,853/-.  From this Annexure – 9, it is available also that on 23.03.09 the matured fixed amount of Rs. 1,31,407/- was adjusted with the outstanding loan amount of Rs. 2,18,177/- and thereafter, the balance became due to Rs. 86,770/-.   On this point, it is categorically stated by the OP in the written version that this amount was adjusted with the outstanding amount as per request of the complainant.  So considering the Annexure – 9, 10 & 11 we find that there is no error 

Page 6  of 6

in the computerized statement of account prepared and supplied by the OP.

Therefore, after a careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of this case and after hearing the arguments of the ld. lawyers for both the parties, it is clear to us that the complainant enjoyed the cash credit loan facility of Rs. 2,00,000/- as sanctioned by the OP Bank.  It is also established that he neither deposited the margin amount @ 25% either in kind or in cash.  From the record it is available that the complainant did not repay any loan amount prior to 12.06.08, on which date he deposited Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the OP Bank.  All the amounts deposited by him thereafter, were credited in this favour including the adjustment of matured fixed deposit amount which acted as a collateral security.  Practically, this complainant is a defaulter in making repayment of loan towards the cash credit loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- sanctioning in her favour.  We find no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in this case.  Rather our considered view is that the complainant herself is a defaulter in making repayment of loan which she already enjoyed.  

In view of our above discussions, we find that the complainant has not become able to prove her case, so she is not entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.   In result the case fails.  

Hence,

Ordered,

That the case, CC/09/63 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be delivered to the parties free of cost.