Order-13.

Date-27/04/2018.

        Shri Anupam Bhattacharyya

The instant complaint has been filed by the complainants u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 praying for direction upon the OP to correct the Loan Account, release the mature value of the FDs/Term Deposits with usual rate of interest, to pay compensation and Litigation charge of Rs.20,000/-.

The Complainant’s case, in brief, is that  the Complainant after admission in 3 year Degree Course of BHSM at Gurunanak Institute of Hotel Management for the session 2008-2009  applied for Educational Loan of Rs.2,47,000/- on 24.07.2008 from the OP Bank against collateral security in the form of term deposits amounting to Rs.2,77,151/-, out of  which Complainant withdrew loan of Rs.47,000/-  only as 1^st installment and discontinued the course with due intimation to the College Authority vide letter dated 04.11.209 and did not withdraw any other amount. The Complainant wrote a letter on 25.8.2014 to OP to know the status of the loan account but no response. Further by a letter dated 26.08.2016 the Complainant informed that OP  has not released the entire loan amount sanctioned. On 31.3.2009 the OP informed the Complainant for an outstanding dues of Rs.1,61,000/-. On  query the Complainant came to know that the OP liquidated the term deposit in the name of Debojit Mukherjee, S/o of Tapash Mukherjee Complainant, but wrongly disbursed the amount to Debojit Mukherjee, S/o Goutam Mukherjee who was studying in Chennai. The outstanding dues of actual amount of Rs.47,000/- towards loan withdrawn plus interest cannot be Rs.2,71,151/- plus Rs.1,62,000/- totaling Rs.4,33,151/- as claimed by the OP . The OP has adopted unfair trade practice in liquidating the Term Deposits and debiting the same to the loan account of the Complainant. Hence, the instant complaint case.

            The written version filed by the OPs 1 and 2, in brief, is that the Complainant has taken loan as per terms and conditions, there is no connection between these OPs, respondent and the said institutions.  The Complainant never intimated these OPs Bank that he has left  the institution and for which never instructed  the OP Bank not to release the next installment of the  educational loan. The OP never committed  breach of the terms of the loan and there is no  question of any unfair trade practice by the OPs. There is no fault from the side of the OP, so question of malpractice does not arise at all. The OP never diverted any amount of the said loan to any other Debojit Mukherjee, S/o Goutam Mukherjee as alleged. The statement made against the OP are totally false and baseless.  Hence, the written version of the OP.

Considering the pleading of both sides the following points have been raised.

Point for Decision

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and law?
2. Whether there is any cause of action to file the case?
3. Whether the case is barred by limitation?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
5. What other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get?

Decision with Reasons

Point Nos.1 to 5  .     All the points are taken up together for the brevity of discussion and convenience.

            The instant complaint is for correction of the Loan Account and for release of the matured value of the FDs/Term Deposits with usual rate of interest and to pay compensation and Litigation charge of Rs.20,000/-.

            The complainant’s main case is that the Educational Loan of Rs.2,47,000/- was sanctioned on 24.07.2008 in favour of the complainant for 3 years Degree Course of BHSM at Gurunanak Institute of Hotel Management for the session 2008-2009 by the OP Bank against collateral security in the form of term deposits amounting to Rs.2,77,151/-, out of  which Complainant withdrew loan of Rs.47,000/-  only as 1^st installment and discontinued the course with due intimation to the College Authority vide letter dated 04.11.209 and did not withdraw any other amount. The Complainant wrote a letter on 25.8.2014 to OP to know the status of the loan account but no response. Further by a letter dated 26.08.2016 the Complainant informed that OP  has not released the entire loan amount sanctioned. On 31.3.2009 the OP informed the Complainant for an outstanding dues of Rs.1,61,000/-. On  query the Complainant came to know that the OP liquidated the term deposit in the name of Debojit Mukherjee, S/o of Tapash Mukherjee Complainant, but wrongly disbursed the amount to Debojit Mukherjee, S/o Goutam Mukherjee who was studying in Chennai. The outstanding dues of actual amount of Rs.47,000/- towards loan withdrawn plus interest cannot be Rs.2,71,151/- plus Rs.1,62,000/- totaling Rs.4,33,151/- as claimed by the OP . The OP has adopted unfair trade practice in liquidating the Term Deposits and debiting the same to the loan account of the Complainant.

            On the other hand, OPs main case is that the Complainant has taken loan as per terms and conditions, there is no connection between these OPs, respondent and the said institutions.  The Complainant never intimated the OP Bank that he has left  the institution and for which never instructed  the OP Bank not to release the next installment of the  educational loan. The OP never diverted any amount of the said loan to any other Debojit Mukherjee, S/o Goutam Mukherjee as alleged.  He has not leave the institution but requested to carry on the course. OP prayed for dismissal of the case.

            To prove the case complainant has only adduced evidence on affidavit along with the relevant documents in support of his case.

            In this case, the OP Bank has filed W/V but has not produce the documents called for in respect of specific order vide order no.10 date-19-02-2018 and has also not turned up for argument.

Accordingly, the case against OP Bank has taken up for disposal on merit.

Admittedly, the complainant took educational loan of Rs.2,47,000/- on 24-07-2008 for 3 years Hotel Management Course against collateral securities of Rs.2,71,151/- by twelve FDs with OP Bank.

The complainant’s case is that out of that educational loan only Rs.47,000/- was disbursed in favour of the Institute of Hotel Management where the said cheque was issued by OP bank.

Regarding discontinuation of the course by the complainant from 2^nd semester it appears from the letter dated 04-11-2009 written by the complainant to the college authority intimating that he could not continue his 2^nd semester and Rs.2,500/- is due as 2^nd semester fees and requested to allow him to carry on with the course.

From the documents filed by the complainant including the above document it is clear that the complainant did not intimate the same to the OP Bank.

Though there is prayer in that letter dated 04-11-2009 for continuing the course but there is no document from either side that the complainant continued with the course.

From the letter dated 18-08-2014 filed by the complainant written b y OP Bank to him it appears that the OP Bank gave an opportunity for one time settlement of the loan account for outstanding dues as on 31-03-2014 at Rs.1,61,000/-.

Against that letter the complainant’s father wrote to OP Bank claiming enquiry of Education Loan of the complainant whose Account No.30439424882 and file No.1721 intimating that on 24-07-2008 Education Loan of Rs.2,47,000/- was sanctioned and only one voucher for Rs.47,000/- was submitted and a cheque was issued by ÓP Bank in favour of the Instalment and in the year 2009 his son stopped his study from the institution and in the year 2009 his son stopped his study from the institution and subsequently, came to know on enquiry of loan file No.1721 that Rs.1,61,000/- was withdrawn by some person who is studying at Chennai. 

The complainant’s case is that there is another student in the same name whose father’s name is Gautam Mukherjee where complainant’s father’s name is Tapash Kr. Mukherjee.

The OP Bank’s case is that there was no such diversion of fund and that the complainant never instructed the OP Bank not to release the next instalment of his educational loan and not intimated as to intimation of course.

The OP bank has only filed the  written version which is not a piece of evidence.  Further, they have not filed any document in respect of the impugned loan account of the complainant which is lying with the OP Bank.

So far loan account is concerned it is obvious that the same would be available with OP Bank.  In spite of call for the concerned documents, the OP Bank has not produced the same where they have challenged the complainant’s case by filing written version.

The disputed loan Account of the complainant though lying with the OP Bank has deliberately withheld.

            Section 114(g) of Evidence Act provides that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it, adverse inference can be drawn against him and as such, relying upon this provision we can safely be opined that the disputed Loan Account of the complainant being lying with the OP Bank has deliberately withheld to produce the same before this forum in spite of called for order for  production of the same where this particular OP Bank has challenged the complainant’s case by filing written version, that adverse inference can be drawn against the OP Bank.

            In this case, the complainant has filed twelve FDs whose total maturity value is Rs.2,71,151/-.

            Considering the above discussions as a whole the complainant is entitled to get the loan account settled and also to get the payment of matured FD amount along with interest  at the rate of7 perecent p.a. from 31-03-2014 till realization and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

            On the basis of above discussion we find that all the points are disposed of in favour of the complainant and, as such, complainant is entitled to get the loan account settled and also to get the payment of matured FD amount along with interest  at the rate of7 perecent p.a. from 31-03-2014 till realization and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

            According to settled principle interest being allowed the complainant is not entitled to get any further compensation.

Hence,

Ordered

That the instant case no.328 of 2017 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OPs.

            OP s are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount.

The OPs are directed to settle the Loan Account No.30439424882 and file No.1721 and also to pay the matured FD amount along with interest  at the rate of 7 perecent p.a. from 31-03-2014 till realization and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- within 30 days from the date of this order, in default, the OPs to pay fine  at the rate ofRs.100/- per day delay and the amount so accumulated should be deposited to this Forum.

            Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution under appropriate provision of the C.P. Act.