West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/69/2012

Sri Samiran Roy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

29 Aug 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.69/2012                                                         Date of disposal: 29/08/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

 

For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr.K. Palmal,  Advocate.

For the Defendant/O.P.S.                        : Mr.Sk. S. Ali &

                                                                   Mr. B. K. Raj, Advocates.                                  

          

Sri Samiran Roy, S/o Late Gurupada Roy, Vill. Kuai, P.O. Neradeul, P.S. Keshpur, Dist.

Paschim Medinipur, Pin. 721260.…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1. The Manager, State Bank of India, Khetua Branch, Vill. Khetua, P.O. Sirsha, P.S. Anandapur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, Pin. 721260.
2. Sri Kanchan Kumar Roy, S/o Late Saroj Ranjan Roy, Director of Dayamoyee Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Vill. Amua, P.O. Mohoboni, P.S. Keshpur, Dist- Paschim Medinipur, Pin 721260………….Ops.    

         The case of the complainant Sri Samiran Roy, in short, is that he took loan of 10,00,000/- (Ten lakhs) only on 29/03/2011 from the Op/SBI against storing potato of   3765 quintals (7221 bags)  valued 1882500/- as per banking rules and regulations and handed over potato bonds to the Op bank as security.  On account of abnormal fall of market price, the stored potatoes could not be sold out and failed repayment of loan by the complainant.  It is alleged that despite having full knowledge, the Op bank served demand notice to the complainant and thereupon the complainant paid 15000/- on 13.08.2011 and further paid  50000/- on 20/10/2011 and again 15000/- on 24/10/2011 totalling 80000/- against the loan amount.   It is further alleged by the complainant that the Op illegally by practising fraud and also in violation of Government circular has sold the entire stored potatoes at 131775/- to a single buyer Chandan Ghosh on 17.12.2011 @ Rs 35 per quintal.  In this connection, it is claimed by the complainant that as a result of such

 

Contd……….P/2

 

                                                                    - ( 2 ) –

 

 

alleged act of the Op bank, the complainant suffered huge amount of monitory loss of  1830725/- + 80000/-  only already deposited by him + accrued interest thereon.  Stating the case the

complainant has come before us for necessary relief in terms of the prayer stated in the petition of complaint.  In this connection, copies of Government Notification dated 30.11.2011 and 14.12.2011, together with a bunch of cash memoes dated 20.12.2011, 13.01.2012, 17.01.2012 and so on which are not challenged by the Op.

           The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action, want of jurisdiction and the same is that for defect of

Parties.  Dayamoyee Multipurpose Cold storage Pvt. Ltd. representing by its director Sri Kanchan Kumar Roy is a necessary party.  Moreover, the loan was guaranteed to the complainant for commercial purpose in the matter of storing potatoes and selling the same in terms of loan agreement the potatoes were sold out in public auction which cannot be challenged before this Forum.  Besides, all other allegations were categorically denied and as such claimed for dismissal of the case. In this connection, certain documents as per firisty filed by the Op such as letter of guarantee letter of indemnity dated 29.03.2011, notice dated 1/09/2011 ,15.10.2011 & 25.11.2011, public notice dated 9.12.2011, demand notice dated 23.12.2011, potato bonds dated 13.12.2011, recall notice dated 7.11.2013 & statement of accounts which are not challenged by the complainant.

            During proceeding of this case, the Op No.2 Kanchan Kumar Roy representing Dayamoyee Multipurpose Cold storage Pvt. Ltd. incidentally appear into this case and supported the claim of the complainant by filing written objection.  It is stated that the complainant took loan against potato valued 1882500/- .  On account of abnormal low market price the complainant did not sale his potato within the time.  On the contrary, the Op allegedly sold the same to an outsider at a very reduced price causing huge amount of monitory loss without due intimation to the complainant.   

          Upon the case of the parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?
2. Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?
3. Whether the case is barred by jurisdiction?
4. Whether the case is defect for want of necessary party?
5. Whether the complainant is a consumer for seeking relief before the forum?
6. Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for?

 

Contd……….P/3

 

                                                                                                 - ( 3 ) –

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 6:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for

the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

             Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that admittedly the complainant took loan against the potato stored in the custody of OP No.2 in terms of agreement.  But the Op No.1 without due intimation to the complainant even in violation of Government Notification sold the stored potatoes in auction at a very low price causing huge amount of monitory loss.

The complainant repeatedly moved before the Op no.1 and deposited 80000/- only against his loan amount.  Even so the Op sold the stored potatoes in conspiracy with one third person Chandan Ghosh.  As a result, the complainant incurred loss of Rs.1830725/-.  This deliberate and motivated act of the op amounts deficiency of service.  Thus, the complainant should get relief in terms of the prayer.    

              Ld. Advocate for the Op No.1 made specific reply through his argument that the complainant is not a consumer but a trader who use to collect potatoes, store and sell for gain in the form of profit as to his case.  So this petition of complaint in the guise of a consumer should not lie for seeking relief under the Consumer Protection Act.  Secondly, it is evident that the complainant failed to repay the loan in terms of agreement and as such the Op No.1 upon due notice + reminder on several times with giving due time for repayment, ultimately took appropriate steps for adjustment of the loan.  Lastly, there is no evidence on the rate of potatoes at the time of auction sale produced from the end of the complainant establishing the allegation of financial loss as claimed by him.  Thus the case should be dismissed. 

        We have carefully considered the case.  It appears that the material information on record from the end of the complainant is not going to support the claim to be a consumer under the definition as laid down in the Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant by profession is believed to be a person who stores potatoes with an object for selling the same at the time when its market price becomes high up.  Here in this case Op No.1 bank being a financial institution is found to have observed the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and accordingly he has taken statutory steps for protection of his financial loss in the matter of loan granted to the complainant.  Apart from that, the sale of potatoes admittedly in auction is not found to have challenged by strong evidence showing that alleged sale was held at an unusual low market price at the material point of time.

 

Contd……….P/4

 

 

                                                                                             - ( 4 ) –

 

        Under the facts and circumstances, we do not find any valid ground in the case of the complainant to hold the allegation deficiency of service against the Op NO.1.

        Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.    

               Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest  without cost.

Dic. & Corrected by me

             

         President                          Member              Member                             President

                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur.