West Bengal

Kolkata-II(Central)

CC/55/2017

Md.Ansar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Debesh Halder

22 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KOLKATA UNIT - II (CENTRAL)
8-B, NELLIE SENGUPTA SARANI, 7TH FLOOR,
KOLKATA-700087.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/55/2017
 
1. Md.Ansar
3/D-Kazi Marx Sarani, Kolkata-700023.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India
33 N.S. Road, Kolkata-700001, P.S. Hare Street.
2. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India
1, Dent Mission Road, Kolkata-700023, P.S. Ekbalpur.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. KAMAL DE PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Sangita Paul MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Rabi Deb Mukherjee MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Debesh Halder, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
Ops are present.
 
Dated : 22 May 2017
Final Order / Judgement

Order-10.

Date-22/05/2017.

 

       Shri Kamal De, President.

 

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            Complainant’s case in short, is that complainant holds a SB A/c. being No.1937319695 with the OP bank since the year 2012.  The complainant for his personal requirement in the year 2014 took a personal loan from the OP Bank to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs mortgaging his term deposit certificates at the time of sanction of the said loan, the details of term deposit certificates have been furnished for the petition of the complaint.  It is alleged that the complainant has duly paid the total outstanding loan amount to the OP-Bank but the OP Bank failed to release the term deposit certificates to the complainant.  The complainant requested the OP Bank to release the said certificates but the Bank Authority withheld the said certificates illegally and without any valid reason.  Complainant wrote letters to OP Bank dated 14-11-2016 and 28-011-2016 but the OP Bank did not release the said certificates.  It is stated that in the pass book the due amount is shown as Rs.2.  The complainant went to the OP Bank for payment of the said amount of Rs.2 but Bank Authority did not accept it.  Complainant has alleged unfair trade practice and deficiency in service against the OP Bank.  Hence, this case.

            OPs1 and 2 have contested the case in filing written version contending, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable in fact or in law.  It is stated that the complainant is a customer of the OP Bank having more than one account maintained in Karl Marx Sarani Branch having SB A/c. No.1937319695 with the said branch.  The complainant requested the bank to sanction a personal loan against some fixed deposits.  The Bank was pleased to sanction the personal loan against such deposits pledged to the Bank as security covered.  During repayment of loan complainant also took demand loan of Rs.27,000/- as he was in urgent need of money.  OP Bank in consideration of the harmonious relationship and in good faith and in view of some term deposits under lien with the Bank sanctioned the amount of Rs.27,000/- as demand loan bearing no.3418368458.  The Branch Manager in his discretionary power also sanctioned a temporary demand loan repayable as soon as possible.  The complainant failed and neglected to repay the said demand loan of Rs.27,000/- along with interest agreed thereupon even after repeated requests and follow ups.  It is stated that after completion of interest it is found as per statement of account that an amount of Rs.34,002/- is yet due and payable by the complainant as on 07-04-2017 but the complainant is deliberately shirking his responsibility of repaying his liability arising out of repayment of his demand loan.  This OP has stated that the instant complaint is not admissible in law until the complainant liquidated his demand loan liability.

Point for Decision

  1. Whether the OP-Bank has been deficient in rendering service to the complainant?
  2. Whether OP Bank has indulged in unfair trade practice?
  3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons

We have perused the documents on record i.e. Xerox copy of pass book in the name of the complainant, Xerox copy of statement of accounts, Xerox copy of term deposit certificates 5(five) in numbers, Xerox copy of the letter for release of fixed deposit certificates, Xerox copy of legal notice as filed from the side of the complainant. 

We are also seen the documents filed from the side of the OP i.e. Xerox copy of transaction details in respect of demand loan of Rs.27,000/- against FD, Xerox copy of withdrawal of Rs.30,000/- from OP Bank, Xerox copy of statement of accounts and other documents on record.

It appears that the complainant applied to OP2 Bank for sanction of a term loan and he deposited some fixed certificates which he purchased for OP2 Bank, 5(five) in number, total face value of Rs.5,31,842/- to avail the term loan.  OP2 Bank was pleased to sanction term loan with drawing limit of Rs.5,43,000/- against the collateral securities of the said fixed deposits pledged and assigned to OP2 Bank.  We also find that the complainant on 22-12-2014 took demand loan of Rs.27,000/- and the said demand loan bearing account No.3418368458 and the said amount of Rs.27,000/- was duly credited in his savings account on 22-12-2014.  It also appears from the withdrawal slip that the complainant withdrew Rs.30,000/- on 22-12-2014.  It also appears that the complainant failed and neglected too pay the demand loan of Rs.27,000/- plus interest.  Consequently, the said loan with passage of time one went bad and turned into NPA.  The complainant has field the complaint petition for fixed deposit receipts to be returned to him since his term loan was repaid as per statement of account.  But it also appears from the documents on record that the complainant did not repay the demand loan of Rs.27,000/- to the OP Bank.  We also find from the document of accounts that an amount of Rs.34,002/- is due and payable by the complainant as on 07-04-2017 inclusive of interest on the sum of Rs.27,000/-.  So, we find that the complainant has demand loan liability of Rs.34,002/- calculated up to 07-04-2017.  We think that complainant is under obligation to repay the said amount of loan with interest which is repayable by him to the OP Bank.  We think that the instant case is devoid of merit as such.  We do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Bank.  It is not the version of the OP-Bank that OP Bank will not return the Fixed Deposit Certificates.  It is stated by the OP Bank that it would return the FD certificates on repayment of demand loan amount of Rs.217,000/- with interest.  So, onus lies upon both the parties to act reciprocally. 

Accordingly, we allow the case conditionally.

Consequently, we dispose the case in terms of the operating portion of the order as follows

Hence,

Ordered

That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs.

            Complainant is entitled to get the return of the term deposit certificates from the OP Bank on payment of demand loan of Rs.27,000/- plus interest computed up to the date of repayment.

            OP Bank is also directed to release the term deposit certificate to the OP on receiving the amount of Rs.27,000/-  plus interest computed up to the date of payment forthwith.

            The instant case is thus disposed of.

Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. KAMAL DE]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sangita Paul]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Rabi Deb Mukherjee]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.