CONSUMER CASE NO.- 06/2022
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant made five numbers of fixed deposits on 17/05/2003 for Rs.30,000/- and on 25/05/2004 for Rs.17,000/- , Rs. 35,000/-, Rs.7,000/- and for Rs.35,000/- with the Opposite Party ( in short O.P. ) UCO Bank, Silchar Branch. In the year 2007 the complainant took term loan and cash credit loan from the O.P. for her business. Subsequently for return of the loan amount the complainant applied for One Time Settlement (OTS) and the same was approved by the appropriate authority of the O.P. as per letter dated 28/06/2019 and the amount settled for closure of the loan was fixed to be Rs.15,00,000/- ( Rupees fifteen lakh ) only. The complainant earlier deposited an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for adjustment with the OTS and subsequently after fixation of the amount she deposited the remaining amount of Rs.12,00,000/- on 28/06/2019 and on 01/07/2019 the Bank issued clearance certificate. It has been further stated by the complainant that the maturity value of her entire fixed deposits amounting to Rs. 3,49,308/- was adjusted with her Term loan and C.C. account on 28/06/2019 by the O.P. According to the complainant, once the term of settlement was made and she paid the outstanding amount the adjustment of the Fixed Deposit proceedings which were kept lien was illegal and thus the O.P. Bank caused disservice, mental agony and pain to her. Under the circumstances, the complainant has ,therefore, prayed for passing an award of Rs.3,49,308/- being the value of Fixed Deposits, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony, pain etc. and an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards cost of litigation.
Opposite Party UCO Bank, Silchar Branch has filed written statement stating, interalia, that there is no cogent reason for filing this complaint, that the claim is barred by limitation etc. The answering O.P. has denied all the allegations leveled by the complainant. It has been stated by the answering O.P. that as the complainant failed to repay the loan dues so the answering bank in exercise of its right of set off adjusted the proceeds of the fixed deposits in question amounting to Rs. 3,39,308/- to the loan account of the complainant . According to the O.P. no prior consent is required as per law from the complainant for adjustment of the proceeds of the fixed deposits. It is further stated that though one time settlement was made by and between the complainant and the answering O.P. whereby the answering O.P. agreed to accept the discounted amount of loan dues but under no circumstances the answering O.P. lost its right of set off over the fixed deposits proceeds. Under the circumstances the O.P. has submitted that they have not committed any illegality and also they have not caused any negligence or disservice towards the complainant. It is, therefore, prayed for declaration that the O.P. is not liable in any way in the case.
In support of the case complainant Sri Sushila Golchha has submitted her evidence on affidavit as sole prosecution witness (PW-1) and has also exhibited some documents. On the other hand, from the side of O.P. evidence on affidavit of one Sri Biswajit Purkayastha has been submitted as DW-1 and also some documents have been exhibited. Thereafter both sides have also submitted written argument in addition of oral argument put forward by the learned counsels of the respective parties. Perused the entire evidence on record. Let us now appreciate the evidence below.
In her evidence as PW-1 the complainant has stated the same facts as narrated in her complaint petition. The version of PW-1 is that she made five numbers of fixed deposits on 17/05/2003 for Rs.30,000/- and on 25/05/2004 for Rs.17,000/- , Rs. 35,000/-, Rs.7,000/- and for Rs.35,000/- with the O.P. UCO Bank, Silchar Branch. She took term loan and cash credit loan from the O.P. in the year 2007 for her business. She was unable to repay the loan amount as per terms and conditions of loan and the loan became NPA. Subsequently for return of the loan amount she applied for One Time Settlement (OTS) and the same was approved by the appropriate authority of the O.P. as per letter dated 28/06/2019 and the amount settled for closure of the loan was fixed to be Rs.15,00,000/- ( Rupees fifteen lakh ) only. Further evidence of PW-1 is that earlier she deposited an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for adjustment with the OTS and subsequently after fixation of the amount she deposited the remaining amount of Rs.12,00,000/- on 28/06/2019 and on 01/07/2019 the O.P. issued clearance certificate. It has been alleged by the complainant that the maturity value of her entire fixed deposits amounting to Rs. 3,49,308/- was adjusted with her Term loan and C.C. account on 28/06/2019 by the O.P. which is beyond the terms of settlement. According to PW-1, once the term of settlement was made and she paid the outstanding amount the adjustment of the Fixed Deposit proceedings with the loan which were kept lien was illegal and thereby the O.P. Bank caused disservice, mental agony and pain to her. In support of her evidence PW-1 has exhibited several documents vide Ext.-1 to Ext.-12. Ext.-1 is the copy of letter dated 15/09/2015 sent by the complainant to the O.P. bank desiring to settle her loan by making payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- in full and final settlement of the account. Ext.-3 shows that on 18/03/2019 the complainant wrote letter to the Bank desiring to settle her loan finally with Rs.15,00,000/- . From Ext.-4 copy of letter dated 28/06/2019 it reveals that the O.P. Bank approved on some terms and conditions the compromise offer of the complainant made vide her Ext.-3 letter. Ext.-5 is the copy of clearance certificate issued by the bank.
Perusal of the evidence of DW-1 goes to show that they have not disputed the fact that the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- towards One Time Settlement of her loan account. It is also not in dispute that on 28/06/2019 the O.P. adjusted the proceeds of the Fixed Deposits amounting to Rs. 3,49,308/- against the loan of the complainant. But according to DW-1 in exercise of its right of set-off the O.P. Bank adjusted the proceeds of the fixed deposit in question being Rs. 3,49,308/- to the loan accounts of the complainant. Further averment of DW-1 is that though One Time Settlement was made by and between the complainant and the O.P. whereby the O.P. agreed to accept the discounted amount of loan dues but under no circumstances the O.P. lost its right of set-off over the fixed deposits proceeds . According to DW-1 in response to the compromise proposal dated 18/03/2019 of the complainant, the O.P. vide Ext.- C letter dated 28/06/2019 clearly communicated to her that the compromise proposal was subject to without prejudice to the Bank’s right exercisable under various loan documents/securities created by her for availing the loan. It does not reveal from the case record that the complainant raised any objection against the terms and conditions of Ext.-C letter. Moreover it reveals that the proceeds of the fixed deposits was also adjusted on the same day of payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- by the complainant and also before issuance of clearance certificate by the O.P. That those fixed deposits were kept as securities against the loan of the complainant this fact is not denied. There is also no submission from the complainant side that there was any written agreement between her and the bank which bars the bank to adjust the proceeds of fixed deposits against the alleged loan taken by the complainant. On the other hand the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ‘ Syndicate Bank Vs. Vijoy Kumar and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 1066’ has upheld the right of bankers lien and right of set off holding that these are of mercantile customs and are judiciously recognized.
In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that in the instant case the complainant can not get any relief. Accordingly the case stands dismissed on contest. No costs.
Given under our seal and signature on this 30th day of June’ 2023.
