The instant case has been initiated under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for a direction upon the Opposite Party to hand over the loan clearance certificate + Rs.01,00,000/- towards compensation.
The fact of the case, in brief, is that the complainant obtained loan from Opposite Party and due to poor business condition the complainant submit an one time settlement proposal before the Opposite Party / Bank with his loan accounts vide No. 5187261000040 and 5187727000009 with an earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- and said proposal was sanctioned by the Appropriate Authority of the Opposite Party /. Bank which was communicated to the complainant by the Opposite Party / Bank through letter No. BRMPRO/CRMR/OTS/718/2020-21 dated 24.11.2020. After receiving the O.T.S. sanction letter complainant deposit the sanctioned amount to the O.P. Bank on 01.02.2021 Rs. 1,50,000/- and on 10.02.2021 Rs.5,04,000/- and 20.02.2021 Rs. 36,000/- and Rs, 2,00,000/- total deposit standing at Rs.9,10,000/- within stipulated period mentioned in the said sanction letter. After depositing the entire OTS amount, the complainant several times requested to the Opposite Party / Bank for loan clearance certificate in favour of him in respect of the above mentioned accounts along with return back of his documents of the secured property lay with the Opposite Party / Bank as EMTD. But Opposite Party / bank did not pay any heed. Lastly the complainant sent a legal notice for the loan clearance certificate and return back of his documents of mortgage properties through his Advocate Mr. Debasish Chakarborty on 02.03.2021 but the Opposite Party refused to do the same and communicate their negative willingness to the Advocate Mr. Debasish Chakaraborty through letter vide No. Nil dated 17.03.2021. The Opposite Party / Bank on their letter No. Nil dated 17.03.2021 mentioned that the complainant has another loan with Syndicate bank, Balurghat Branch vide loan account No.95521400000520 with an outstanding of Rs.2174401.23 and now said Syndicate Bank is under control of Canara Bank. And for the said reason the Opposite Party / bank denied to issue loan clearance certificate and return back the documents of the mortgages properties. It is fact that the complainant has above mentioned loan liabilities with the Syndicate bank but the property which was mortgaged with Canara Bank did not extended mortgage with the Syndicate bank, And at the sanctioned letter of the loan proposal of the Syndicate bank nothing was mentioned in the securities column regarding mortgage of any immovable properties. Opposite Party / Bank forcefully denied issuing loan clearance certificate and returning back the documents of the mortgage property to the complainant. Due to illegal act of Opposite Party your complainants suffered irreparable loss and mental agony. Having no alternative, the Complainant filed the instant case for redress.
Notice was issued upon the Opposite Party and after receiving the notice the opposite party appeared before this Commission and filed his written version.
By filing written version, the Opposite Party has stated that Mr. Sourav Sarkar was loan account holder of our Branch vide Account No. 5187261000040 (C.C) and 5187727000009 (T.L) and amount of Rs.10,00000/- (Ten lakhs) & Rs.15,00000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) was sanctioned for his business purpose. But during continuance of that loan he willfully violated the terms and condition of the loan agreement and did not repay the amount as per terms and condition on several requests. He did not comply the terms and condition of the loan agreement. As a result his account was turned into a NPA account on 16.04.2019 and Rs.19,02607/- (with interest) was remain outstanding in his loan account calculated up to 21.10.2020. Subsequently, he proposes to the Bank for one time settlement of the loan Account and submitted a proposal of OTS and also deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and the Bank authority accepted his proposal and OTS amount was fixed as per OTS The sanctioned amount is Rs.906000/- and the said sanctioned proposal was send to the Complainant Sourav SArkar on 24.11.2020 vide letter No. BRMPRO/CRMR/OTS/718/2021. There after Sourav Sarkar separately deposited on 04 (four) dates the entire O.T.S. amount in his loan account and wants to return Bank his deeds and documents which is mortgaged to the Bank. In the meantime as per Government decision some banks are merged with another Bank’s and by that Syndicate bank also merged with Canara bank and now Syndicate bank known to all as Canara Bank. Before returning his documents it was scrutinized by the bank whether any loan is pending in any Branch. In the name of Sourav Sarkar or not. Then it was observed that another loan account vide No. 95521400000520 lying in the name of Sourav Sarkar at Syndicate bank, Balurghat Branch and the same account has also turned into NPA and an amount of Rs.2174401.23 is lying out standing in his account which was not brought into the notice of the Panjual Branch and he is liable to pay the said outstanding. As per regulation, bank should verify that any particular Mortgagor / Borrower is not having any direct / indirect liabilities to the bank whether same or other Branch and when it come to our knowledge, same has been communicated to Sourav Sarkar on several processes and he came to the bank and denied to pay the said outstanding by saying that it is another bank and present bank cannot detained his documents for other Bank’s liabilities. Then, he send one advocates letter demand on 05.03.2021 and the Branch Manager replied of the several letter on 17.03.2021 and told that as there are other labiates so loan clearance certificate is not issued and original mortgage documents are not handed over to him and also informed that bank is always ready to issue loan clearance certificate and to hand over the documents after his repayment. But he did not comply this request and filed this case. As there is no negligence on the part of the bank and there is no deficiency in service, so the case should be dismissed and there is no question of compensation.
In support of his case, the Complainant has filed the photo copies of the following documents -
- Reply of O.P. against letter dated 05.03.2021 of Complainant
- Legal notice of Complainant for clearance certificate.
On the other hand the Opposite Party has filed the following document in support of his defense -
1. Photo copy of OTS proposal
2. Photo copy of acceptance of OTS proposal
3. Photo copy of reply of O.P. against the letter dated 05.03.2021 of Complainant
4. Photo copy of legal notice of Complainant
5. Copy of loan recovery policy of the Bank.
In view of the above mentioned discussions the following points are cropped up for determination.
Points for determination
- Is the complainant a consumer to the Opposite Parties?
- Is there any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?
REASONED DECISION
We have heard argument by Ld. Advocates for the both sides at length. Perused the materials on record, evidence on affidavit and written argument filed by the parties. We have also gone through the documents produced before us by both the parties.
At the time of argument, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant narrated the fact of the case as mentioned in the complaint petition. Ld. Advocate further submitted that the Opposite Party did not issue loan clearance certificate and mortgaged documents even after payment of entire loan amount. There is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party so, the instant case should be allowed.
On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party also narrated his defense case as mentioned in the written version. Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party further submitted that the as per order of the Govt., the syndicate bank has been merged with the Canara Bank. Though the Complainant has paid entire loan amount of Canara Bank but there is still some outstanding on the part of the Complainant and the same has not been paid by the Complainant .So, loan clearance certificate has not been issued to the Complainant and the mortgaged documents have not been returned. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party so, the case is liable to be dismissed.
Let all these points be discussed one by one -
Point NO. 1
It is admitted by the Opposite Party that the Complainant has taken loan from him and also paid the loan of his Bank. Hence, this Commission is of the view that the complainant is a consumer u/s 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.
Points No. 2 & 3
Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity.
It is an admitted fact that the Complainant took two loans of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.15,99,000/- vide A/C no.5187261000040(C.C) and 518772700009(T.L) respectively. Further due to irregular payment of said loans, the loan accounts turned into NPA and thereafter, a settlement was made in between the parties and One Time Settlement (OTS) was made . Thereafter, the Complainant paid all the outstanding dues.
Now, it is the allegation of the Complainant that in spite of payment of all dues, the Opposite Party denied to issue loan clearance certificate and also denied to return the documents of mortgaged property.
On the other hand, it is submitted by the Opposite Party that the Syndicate Bank has been merged with Canara Bank, so the liability of Syndicate Bank has been vested to the Canara Bank. It appears from the office document that the Complainant has taken a loan from the Syndicate Bank, Balurghat Branch, vide loan account no.95521400000520 and the said account has also been turned into NPA and an amount of Rs.21,74,401.23/- is lying outstanding and this fact was suppressed by the Complainant before the Opposite Party. So, until and unless the said amount lying due in the Syndicate Bank in the name of the Complainant is paid, the Opposite Party cannot issue loan clearance certificate and also cannot return the documents of mortgaged property.
Though, the Opposite Party has failed to produce the order of the said merger but from the extract of the said merger order taking from the internet it is found that The Board of Directors of Canara Bank approved the merger on 13 September 2019. The Union Cabinet approved the merger on March 2020. Canara Bank assumed control over Syndicate Bank on 1st April 2020 with Syndicate Bank shareholders receiving 158 equity shares in the former for every 1,000 shares they hold. It has also been stated that if a person has loan accounts from both Syndicate Bank and Canara Bank, both the loan facilities will continue as per current terms and conditions.
Now, on perusal of Loan Recovery Policy of the Canara Bank 2021-2022 vide circular no.284 / 2021 dated 03.05.2021, it has been mentioned in clause 7.14 as In cases, where there is no commonality of management, all the NPA accounts of the borrowers / guarantors should be consolidated and negotiated for OTS. If there is Home loan, Vehicle Loan, Education Loan etc. of any customer / borrower, all these liabilities also to be negotiated along with the main proposal, which shall be separate settlement apart from the Company’s / Firm’s liability.
Here, the Loan Account of the Complainant of Syndicate Bank come under the control of the Canara Bank after merger so, it can be presumed that the Complainant is bound to repay the said loan as per terms and condition of the Canara Bank.
In view of the above mentioned findings, this commission is of opinion that the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party but there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party so, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief. .
Accordingly, both the points are decided in favor of the Opposite Party.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That the complaint case No. 16 of 2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Opposite Party but without cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
