West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/76/2012

Sri Santi 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.76/2012                                                         Date of disposal: 29/08/2014                               

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

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Katop Chattopadhyay.

   

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

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr.  B. Raj & Sk. S. Ali, Advocate.                                  

          

            Sri  Santi Roy, S/o Uday Roy of Village Satdubi, P.O.  Khalakpur, P.S. Keshpur, 

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

                                                           Vs.

1. The Manager, State Bank of India, Khetua Branch, Village Khetua, P.O. Sirsha, P.S.Anandapur, Dist Paschim Medinipur, Pin 721260
2. Sri Kanchan Roy, Director of Dayamayee Multipurpose Cold storage (P) Ltd., Vill Amua, P.S. Anandapur, Dist Paschim Medinipur..……………Ops.

 

           The case of the complainant Sri  Santi Roy, in short, is that he took loan of 10,00,000/- (Ten lakh) on 12/03/2011 from the Op/SBI for storing potato of 7130 bags valued 17,82,500/- (Seventeen lakh eighty two thousand five hundred only) at Dayamayee Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd. at Vill-Amua.  In this connection, the complainant deposited necessary bond before the OP bank as security in accordance with the Bakning rules and regulations.  It is further case of the complainant is that the storing potato could not be sold out on the ground of abnormal fall of market price thereof which is also known to the Op.  Even so, a demand notice was issued by the Op/Bank to the complainant despite the bonds were lying in their custody as security.  The complainant, in response to the alleged demand notice, paid 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) only on 13/08/2011 against the loan amount.  In spite of that the Op, by practising fraud upon the complainant, sold the entire stored potato on 17/12/2011 to one outsider purchaser Chandan Ghosh reportedly at 1,24,725/- (One lakh twenty four thousand seven hundred twenty five) only  instead actual cost of 16,57,775/- (Sixteen lakhs fifty seven thousand seven hundred seventy five ) in violation of Government Circular for extension of the period of unloading said stored potatoes up

Contd…………….P/2

 

                                                                                                        ( 2 ) -

to 31/12/2011.  As a result, the Complainant suffered 16,57,775/- (Sixteen lakhs fifty seven thousand seven hundred seventy five) only plus 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) only which was paid on 13/08/2011.  Stating the case the complainant prayed before us for passing an order for payment of 16,57,775/- (Sixteen lakhs fifty seven thousand seven hundred seventy five) only with interest and cost of 10,000/- (Ten thousand) only.

            The Op/SBI contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action and jurisdiction.  Moreover the complainant took loan for the purpose of storing potatoes and selling the same for commercial interest.  Apart from that, the stored potatoes were sold in public auction in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the loan agreement.  The allegations raised by the complainant are baseless. Thus, the case should be dismissed.

          Op-No.2 Kanchan Roy supported the case of the complainant.

          Upon the case of both 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 complainant is a consumer for seeking relief before the Forum?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled for getting compensation as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              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 the complainant availed of loan as per banking rules for storing huge amount of potatoes against Proper Bond.  But due to low market price, the stored potatoes were not sold out by the complainant within the schedule period.  On this ground, the Op/Bank by practising fraud upon by the complainant, sold the entire potatoes in conspiracy with an outsider purchaser despite Government Circular extending the period.  For the alleged act of the Op/Bank, the complainant suffered huge amount of financial loss.  So, necessary order for compensation should be passed by the Ld. Forum.

             The Ld. Advocate for the Op/Bank as per existing terms and conditions of the banking rules the suitable action has been taken with due notice to the complainant.  So, there is no ground for raising any claim/dispute before this Forum.  Apart from that, the petition of complaint cannot be legally admissible in the Forum as the complainant is not a consumer in the

Contd……….P/3

 

 

- ( 3 ) -

strict sense of Consumer Protection Act.  The fact itself as elucidated in the petition of complaint goes to highlight the actual status of the complainant that he deals with such functions for commercial purpose.  In order to clarify the circumstances, it is submitted by the Ld. Advocate that the complainant in fact availed of the loan for the purpose of purchasing, storing and selling of the huge quantity of potato in the open market not for his personal consumption but for commercial Purpose.  Thus, the case should out rightly be rejected.

             We have considered the case very seriously with the help of the documents admitted by the parties vice-versa and it is evident that the complainant deals with huge quantity of potatoes for commercial purpose.  The incident of sale of the stored potatoes in public auction in open market from the end of Op/Bank was held on 17/12/2011, even after expiry of the period extended as under the Govt. notification no.6796-MW & C/AM/0/7C-1/2004(1) Dt 30/11/2011, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan. Nowhere in the pleadings, it is divulged that the Complainant is a consumer in the strict sense of section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. So, this Forum has no jurisdiction to go beyond the terms and conditions of the agreement made between the contending parties who are binding with their agreed terms. Besides, the Complainant can not be treated as Consumer within the meaning of section 2(d) of the said Act. Thus, it is held and decided that there is no valid cause of action for filling this case before the Forum. Accordingly all the issues are held against the complainant. As a result, the case should fail.

                            Hence,

                           It is ordered,    

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

Dictation & Corrected by me

              

             President                             Member                  Member                            President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur.