DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No 175 of 2014
Date of filing: 15.9.2014 Date of disposal: 15.10.2015
Complainant: Safikul Islam, S/o. Late Mujibar Rahaman, residing at Ausgram Road, PO: Guskara, PS: Ausgram, District: Burdwan.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. The Officer-in-Charge, Allahabad Bank, having head office at 2, N.S. Road, Calcutta.
2. The Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Dharapara Branch, Dharapara, PO: Guslara, PS: Ausgram, District: Burdwan – 713 128.
Present: Hon’ble President: Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Tamal Dey.
Appeared for the Opposite Party (s): Ld. Advocate, Chiranjib Samanta.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the Ops as the Ops have encashed two LIC policies, pledged with the bank at a very belated stage and inspite of this did not pay any interest for such delay.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he is carrying on a business for the purpose of maintaining his livelihood. The complainant obtained a Cash-Credit loan from the OP-2 for Rs. 2, 40,000=00 @12.25 interest per annum and in this respect an agreement was made by and between the complainant and the OP-2. Accordingly the OP-2 sanctioned the loan and issued a letter mentioning the same on 17.01.2007. For taking this loan the complainant had to pledge five LICI policies as lien. The numbers of the said policies are 461145634, 463096875, 463096876,463096955 & 462380711. The maturity date of the policy number 461145634 was on 10.9.2010 and other two policies i.e. 463096875 & 463096876 were on 08.7.2012. But the OP-2 did not take any initiative to deposit the said policies in the LICI office for collection of the maturity benefit within right time. Though request was made to the OP-2 but it did not pay any heed to such request and as a result of which the complainant had to suffer loss of such interest amount during post-maturity period whereas the OP-2 imposed interest on the Cash-Credit loan amount as per agreement day by day. At last the OP-2 deposited those two policies on 18.3.2014 and collected the matured amount of the policy no. 461145634 on 11.10.2010 through a cheque dated 12.10.2010 for a sum of Rs. 23,670=00 but the said amount was not deducted from the loan amount, which is clearly negligence, deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice of the OP-2 towards this complainant. The OP-2 is also responsible for not collecting the maturity amount of the two policies i.e. 463096875 & 463096876 and further did not deduct the amount after collection from the loan amount and such action also suffers from deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant approached to the OP-2 for deducting the interest accrued on the total loan for a period of two years as the maturity amount had not been deducted from the loan amount as collected by the OP-2 and for this reason had to suffer monetary loss also. As his grievance had not been redressed by the Ops hence the complainant had to approach before this ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the Ops for making payment of Rs. 3,00,000=00 towards compensation due to loss suffered by him along with harassment, mental agony as well litigation cost.
This complaint has been contested by OP-2 by filing written version wherein it is stated that this complaint is false, baseless and inflated because the claim as sought for by the complainant is arbitrary in nature and this case has been filed by him to grab some unlawful profit and harass this OP. It is further submitted by the Op-2 that the complainant applied for Cash-Credit loan limit 2, 40,000=00 to the OP-2 and in this respect written prayer was made and accordingly the loan was sanctioned on 17.01.2007 and during sanction the complainant handed over five LICI policies as lien and made assignee of the same with the OP-2 Bank. Thereafter the complainant expressed his willingness to enhance the limit of Cash-Credit loan and made written application to the OP Bank. As per his prayer the Bank enhanced the limit from Rs. 2, 40,000=00 to Rs. 3, 60,000=00 on 04.6.2008. But in the complaint the complainant has suppressed the fact, though it was the duty of the complainant to disclose the real fact for proper adjudication of the complaint. Though the Cash-Credit loan amount was enhanced but the Bank did not create any pressure to mortgage further instrument with the Bank due to good relationship by and between the complainant and the Bank. But in the complaint the complainant has made false statement that he did not get the benefit of matured LICI policy and in this respect this Op submits that the LICI policy being no. 461145634 was matured in the month of September 2010 and it was encashed and the OP-2 got the cheque on 12.10.2010. Upon receipt of the same the Bank made the amount in Fixed Deposit account opened by the Bank itself being No. 50039525159 in the name of the complainant and the complainant is availing of the up to date interest in respect of the said FD account. On 29.10.2014 the FD amount had reached at Rs. 31,869=00 and the bank paid interest from 26.10.2010 as per Banking Rules. The complainant has made wrong statement that the Bank did not deduct the LICI’s matured policy value from the limit of the Cash-Credit loan amount and in this point the OP-2 submits that no Bank can exceed or decrease the Cash-Credit loan limit and the Bank can do the same while written prayer is made by the consumer. From 04.6.2008 when the Cash-Credit limit was for Rs. 3,60,000=00 to the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 19.9.2014 he did not made any written prayer to the Bank for decrease the limit amount, so the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief as ought for from the OP Bank. On the other hand, the complainant made fraud practice to grab some profit by filing this case. As five LICI polices were assigned by the complainant during sanctioning of the Cash-Credit loan amount, hence this OP is the owner of the said LICI policies and if after maturity any loss occurred, the same happened to this OP Bank, not the complainant. On 20.10.2014 the complainant made an application for decrease the Cash-Credit loan limit from Rs. 3,60,000=00 to Rs. 1,50,000=00 after filing this complaint and the OP-2 on the same date deducted the loan limit as per his prayer and issued a letter to him. According to the Ops as there is no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on behalf of these Ops prayer has been made for dismissal of the complainant.
Be it mentioned that the Ops have filed addition evidence wherein same averment has been mentioned. The complainant has filed evidence on affidavit. The OP-2 has challenged the said evidence by filing questionnaire. The complainant had accordingly replied the same on affidavit. Both parties have filed several papers and documents in support of their contention.
We have carefully perused the entire papers and several documents filed by the parties and heard argument as advanced by the ld. Counsel for the respective parties. It is seen by us that the dispute is rolling within a very short compass i.e. as to whether the complainant is entitled to get interest as imposed by the OP Bank on the Cash-Credit loan amount for a period of about two years as the OP Bank did not deduct the maturity amount of two LICI policies from the Cash-Credit loan amount. We have noticed that admittedly the complainant being a businessman through which he used to maintain his livelihood had obtained one Cash-Credit loan from the OP-2 for Rs. 2,40,000=00, the interest of the said loan amount was declared as @12.25% per annum, both parties entered into an agreement, after sanctioning the loan a letter was issued to the complainant by the Bank on 17.01.2007, at the time of taking loan the complainant had to deposit five LICI policies as lien before the Bank, out of five policies the policy no. 461145634 was matured on 10.9.2010 and after encashment of the said cheque, amount was deposited in a Fixed Deposit scheme opened by the Bank in the name of the complainant, thereafter when the said Fixed Deposit got its maturity in the year 2014 the maturity amount had reached at Rs. 31,869=00, the said amount has been deducted by the OP bank from the Cash-Credit loan amount, in respect of the said policy being no. 461145634 cheque was paid by the LICI for Rs. 23,670=00. The allegation of the complainant is that though another two policies being no. 463096875 & 463096876 was matured in the year 2012 but the Bank did not encash the same within due period and deduct the maturity amount from the Cash-Credit loan amount but adopting unfair trade practice the Bank continuously had imposed interest @12.25 % per annum on the loan amount. According to the complainant if the Bank deducted the maturity amount of those two policies from the Cash-Credit loan account, then the loan amount became decrease and complainant did not face any monetary loss due to delay encashment and adjustment with the loan amount. The rebuttal case of the Ops is that though the policy no. 461145634 was encashed within approximately due period and the said amount was kept by the Bank in a separate Fixed Deposit account opened by it in the name of the complainant and thereafter the maturity amount of the Fixed Deposit account had been deducted from the Cash-Credit loan account of the complainant. The Ops have admitted that as they were not told by the complainant for encashment of the two matured LICI policies being nos. 463096875 & 463096876, the Bank could not act upon suo moto for encashment. According to the Bank there is no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part. Upon the hearing the both parties one question cropped up in our mind is that where during maturity of the LICI policy being no. 461145634 no written request was necessary, why in respect of encashment of two policies being no. 463096875 & 463096876 written request or permission became inevitable? No satisfactory reply is forthcoming from the end of the Ops. By filing cogent document the complainant has proved that approximately after two years from the date of maturity of the policies being no. 463096875 & 463096876 the OP Bank placed the said polices before the LICI for encashment. Accordingly LICI had encashed the same and it is also an admitted fact the maturity amount had been deducted by the OP Bank from the Cash- Credit loan amount of the complainant. But there is one point that if those policies were encahsed by the Op Bank within date i.e. before two years and the matured amount was deducted from the Cash-Credit loan amount, then the shoulder of the complainant would not have to be burdened with the interest @12.25% per annum as settled by the OP Bank. Therefore, due to laches of the Op Bank the complainant had to pay interest @12.25% per annum unnecessarily and for this reason obviously the complainant had to suffer monetary loss. In our opinion such inaction or delay activity of the OP Bank is an example of deficiency in service and negligent manner of the Ops, for which the complainant is entitled to get adequate compensation from the Ops. Admittedly as the grievance of the complainant had not been redressed by the Ops and he had to approach this court of law by filing this complaint and in this way the complainant had incurred some expenditure for this process. In our view for this reason the complainant is also entitled to get some litigation cost from the Ops.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is allowed on contest with cost. The Ops are directed either jointly or severally for making payment of Rs. 88,200=00 towards monetary loss due to inaction and deficiency in service of the Ops as mentioned before within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this final order/judgment, in default, the Ops will pay interest @8% per annum either jointly or severally over the above-mentioned amount for the default period. The Ops are further directed either jointly or severally to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,000=00 for deficiency in service and litigation cost of Rs. 1,000=00 to the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default, the complainant will be at liberty to put the entire decree in execution as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this final order/judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
