In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4^th Floor, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 77 / 2010 .

1)                   Sri Sabyasachi Ganguly,

            67, B. Ganguly Bagan Lane, P.O. Mahesh,

            P.S. Serampore, Hooghly.                                                                                ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   The Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Bank,

            2, Upperwood Street, Kolkata-700020, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani.                                    ---------- Opposite Party

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

Order No.   36    Dated  10-04-2013.

Sharmi Basu, Member.

The instant case has been filed by the complainant with an allegation of deficiency in rendering service against the opposite party, which is under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

                        In a nutshell, the case of the complainant is that the complainant applied for loan, amounting to Rs.64,000/-, to the O.P. Bank and got a cheque of Rs.63,777/-.The complainant, after receiving of the said loan amount, instead of repeated requests did not receive the statement from o.p. in relation to the payable rate of interest of  that loan-amount. As per the complainant, he has paid all the monthly instalments in relation to the loan account in question regularly, as it was fixed by the o.p. bank and has paid the full and final payment to the o.p. The complainant has also submitted that after negotiation between the complainant and o.p. there was a full and final settlement and the complainant paid that amount and the amount of that settling amount was Rs.18,000/-. Though it was assured by the o.p. that after payment of that full and final settlement amount, the loan account in the name of the complainant would be closed and o.p. would hand over a clearance certificate i.e. ‘no due certificate’ but, after payment of that amount as per full and final settlement by the complainant to the o.p., the o.p. claimed more amount towards that loan amount.  

Hence, the complainant had no alternative but to file the instant case before this Forum for redressal of his dispute. The complainant has prayed for relieves as mentioned in the petition of the complainant.

            O.P. appeared before this forum and contested the case and denied all the material allegations against them and prayed for dismissal of the case in limini.

Deciosions with reasons

                        We have gone through all the documents brought before this Forum by both the parties and heard only the case of the opposite party from the Ld.Advocate of the O.P. in full and none appeared before this Forum on behalf of the complainant at the time of hearing argument of the case. Before going to the merit of the instant case, it is needed to be mentioned that as per o.p. the instant case is not maintainable. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that in the instant case the complainant has raised allegation of deficiency in service against the o.p., Banking organisation, from where he took loan which is refundable with interest to the bank and we are of the opinion that the complainant is ‘consumer’ and the o.p.,bank is ‘service provider’ as per the definition within the purview of the ‘COPRA,1986’. To decide whether the o.p. is deficient in service and whether the complainant is eligible to get relief fully or partly, following discussion is advanced. It is admitted fact that the complainant took loan from o.p., bank. Crux of the case is that the loan amount in question was paid by the complainant in its entirety to the o.p. or not. The point has been raised by the complainant that at the time of giving loan amount the o.p., bank had deducted Rs.223/- without any justification is not tenable as he has failed to substantiate the allegation with evidence. From record it appeared that the o.p.,bank had offered for settlement for the amount of Rs.18,000/- and the complainant has paid the same. Therefore, we are strongly of the opinion that the complainant repaid the loan amount in question in its entirety to the o.p. and no residual amount is payable by the complainant to the o.p. Therefore, the further claim for payment, without any cogent reason, to the complainant by the o.p. is quiet unjustified and the o.p. thus committed ‘deficiency in rendering service’ towards his consumer/complainant and o.p. is duty bound  to issue ‘NO DUE CERFICATE’ in favour of the complainant with respect to the loan in question and also to refund the blank cheques which had been received form the complainant at the time of disbursement of loan amount. It is not desirable from the o.p. bank that after total repayment of loan amount by the complainant he has to face harassment and mental agony by the repeated claim for payment of further amount towards that loan-account and undoubtedly o.p. is liable to compensate the complainant for such harassment and mental agony of the complainant.

                        Hence,

                                    Ordered,

                        The case of the complainant is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.P. is directed to handover the ‘No Due Certificate’ in relation to the loan account vide Loan Agreement No.LICAL00009814465 and also to handover the blank cheques of the complainant in relation to that loan account in question which are lying with the o.p. and also to pay compensation in the tune of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-to the complainant.