West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/83/2012

Sri Arup Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Ghatal Peoples Co.Operative Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

19 Feb 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.83/2012                                                         Date of disposal: 19/02/2013                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. K. S. Samajder.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S. Chakraborty. Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. S. Bhattacharya. Advocate.

            Sri Arup Pal, S/o-Late Prafullya Pal of Vill & P.O.-Natuk, P.S.-Ghatal, Dist-Paschim

            Medinipur …………………………………………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

      The Manager, Ghatal Peoples Co.Operative Bank Ltd. Town & P.O.-Ghatal, Dist-Paschim

      Medinipur………………………………………Op.

           In a nutshell, the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a tractor bearing No.WB/33B-0057 and rotter with the financial help of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Op-Bank and after depositing Rs.2,31,068/- with the Op-Bank and pledging a fixed deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Op-Bank. Thus, the Bank sanctioned the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and after taking into account the amount deposited by the complainant and also the fixed deposit amount, the Bank issued a draft of Rs.7,31,068/- in the name of the supplier M/S: B.S. Tractor Pvt. Ltd. from whom the complainant received the tractor subsequently the tractor did not function properly for which the complainant has filed a case in this Forum which is pending.

           However, the complainant from time to time made deposit to the Op-Bank but in the meantime the complainant was arrested in a police case and was detained in custody for a period of 78 days during which the Op-Bank repossessed the tractor. After being released from custody the complainant issued a notice on 10/04/12 requesting the Op-Bank through Ld. Lawyer for release of the tractor and in reply to that notice it was disclosed that the tractor has already been sold.

           According to the complainant, the action of repossession and selling of tractor by the Op-Bank was without following the legal procedures  Hence the complainant has filed this case praying for return of the tractor in question with rotter and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.             

Contd…………..P/2

- ( 2 ) -

                        The Op-Bank contested the case by filing written objection contending interalia, that on 19/09/2010 this Op. sanctioned loan of Rs.5,00,00/- to the complainant after the complainant followed some  procedures and executed some documents as mentioned in the written objection. The complainant after purchasing the tractor did not pay the installments regularly and ultimately made default in payment as per the loan agreement. On several occasions the Op-Bank sent notices to the complainant for payment of the outstanding dues but to no effect. Therefore, having no other alternative the tractor was repossessed by the Op-Bank and was sold in auction after complying necessary formalities. So, the Op. prayed for dismissal of this case.

            It is now for our consideration as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as claimed.

Decisions with reasons

             This is an admitted position is that the complainant has purchased the tractor being registration No.WB/33B-0057after taking loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Op-Bank. Although the complainant stated in the complainant that after purchasing the tractor he paid  installments regularly but he could not pay any installment during the period of his detention in custody in connection with a police case but from the copy of the loan pass book as filed by the complainant himself it appears that after receiving delivery of the tractor on 27/07/2010, the payment of installments was very irregular and the last repayment was made on 28/03/2011 for a sum of Rs.3,000/- leaving a total balance amount of Rs.4,75,779/-. During hearing also Ld. Lawyer of the complainant admitted that there was no regular payment on the part of complainant and till the date of last notice of repossession of tractor a sum of Rs.5,16,621/- remained outstanding towards loan. From the documents filed by the Op. it appears that the complainant was served notice by the Op-Bank for repayment of outstanding dues and also the action of repossession of the tractor to be taken by the Op-Bank in the event of non-payment of due amount of loan. This fact could not be denied by the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant during the time of the hearing of this case. The repossession of the tractor from the village of the complainant is admitted. Case records shows that after repossession also the Op-Bank served notice to the complainant asking him to make payment of the total due amount of Rs.5,41,281/-(as the amount stood on) the date of notice i.e on 01/02/2012). In that notice the complainant was asked to make payment of due amount within 7 days from the date of receipt of notice and it was clearly indicated therein that in case of failure to pay the amount within the stipulated date the Op-Bank shall start proceeding for sale of the tractor in auction. That notice was received by the wife of the complainant on 03/02/2012. This fact also remained unchallenged at the time of hearing. The materials in the records show on that thereafter notice of auction sale of the tractor was published in a local daily newspaper and on the specified

Contd…………..P/3

- ( 3) -

date i.e. on 20/03/2012 the tractor was sold in auction. The documents on record show clearly that all necessary formalities relating to auction sale were observed. During hearing Ld. Lawyer for the complainant fairly submitted that he had nothing to say regarding the procedure of the auction sale. What was submitted on behalf of complainant was that the complainant is a poor man and his prayer may be considered sympathetically since he was in custody more than two and a half months.

            Having sympathy with the complainant can not help the complainant in getting an order in his favour in absence of reasonable and sustainable reason. In this case it is admitted that there was default of payment of loan amount, that the complainant was served notice before repossession of the tractor and that the tractor was sold in auction after complying with the necessary formalities and procedure and ever before auction sale also notice was given to the complainant. Therefore if we consider the facts and circumstance this case and the materials of on record, we find that there remains no scope for granting relief to the complainant as prayed by him.

             Thus the case is liable to be dismissed.

                          Hence,

                                        Ordered,

                                                    that the case be dismissed on contest, however, without any order as to cost.      

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                                Member              Member                                  President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                           Paschim Medinipur.