Tripura

StateCommission

A/18/2018

Sri. Pradip Shil - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Tripura State Co operative Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Rakesh ch. Deb, Mr. P. Ghosh

19 Nov 2018

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.18.2018

 

 

 

1. Sri Pradip Shil,

S/o Late Promod Shil,

Resident of Gurkhabasti,

P.S. New Capital Complex,

District - West Tripura, Pin:799006.

… … … … Appellant/Complainant.

Vs

 

1. Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Represented by the General Manager,

Head Office at Post Office Chowmuhani,

P.S. West Agartala, District - West Tripura,

Pin: 799001.

 

2. Branch Manager,

Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura,

Pin: 799001.

                                                          … … … … Respondent/Opposite parties.

 

 

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                       Mr. Prabal Kumar Ghosh, Adv.

For the Respondents:                                  Mr. Gouri Sankar Bhattacharjee, Adv.

Date of Hearing:                                          07.09.2018 and 05.11.2018.

Date of Delivery of Judgment:                    19.11.2018.

J U D G M E N T

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellant, Sri Pradip Shil against the judgment dated 13.03.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. C.C. 107 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint case.

2. Heard Mr. Prabal Kumar Ghosh, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) as well as Mr. Gouri Sankar Bhattacharjee, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/Bank).
3. Facts of the case are as follows:-
4. Appellant, Sri Pradip Shil filed a complaint case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum stating, inter alia, that he applied for a loan for having a small business to the opposite parties under PMEGP Scheme. Industry Department intimated him for taking loan for setting up a business of decorator. Industry Department promised to pay subsidy of the loan. Opposite parties-Bank sanctioned loan for Rs.3 lacs. Out of Rs.3 lacs, Rs.2,85,000/- was paid and Rs.15,000/- was deducted as margin money. Complainant purchased many articles from Barnali Stores and other shops for the business but payment was not made by the opposite parties-Bank. Opposite parties-Bank fixed the installment Rs.6,485/- which was excessive. Complainant paid installment regularly and Rs.1,27,185/- was paid, but the opposite parties demanded higher amount without deducting the subsidy amount Rs.1,05,000/- paid by the Industry department. Complainant in total paid Rs.1,80,000/- approximately. In spite of that, opposite parties demanded more amount. Complainant could not run his business due to deficiency of service by the opposite parties. So, the complainant claimed compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- along with cost of litigation. 
5. Opposite party no.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statement denying the claim of the complainant. It is stated that Rs.2,85,000/- was sanctioned as loan against the project of Rs.3 lacs. Rs.15,000/- was the own capital of the complainant-loan borrower. The loan amount is to be paid by 60 installments (EMI) amounting to Rs.6,485/-. As per agreement Rs.1,0,5,000/- was the subsidy amount to be paid by Kahdi & Village Industries, but Khadi & Village Industries paid Rs.75,000/- as subsidy, not Rs.1,05,000/-. The complainant in violation of terms and condition of loan agreement diverted the business of decorator unit to other grocery unit without prior intimation. Total due of the complainant was Rs.1,42,874/-. Complainant was given one time opportunity to settle. But he did not take up any step for settlement only to harass the bank. There was no deficiency of service by the bank authority. It is also stated that complainant accepted the terms and conditions of the loan and as security of the loan, the complainant offered the Bank voluntarily his landed property as collateral security. Clause 8 (b) of the Sanction letter dated 06.02.2014 shows that the collateral security is to be decided as offered by the applicant.   
6. On the basis of contention raised by the parties, the learned District Forum framed the following points to decide the case:-
7. Whether the O.P. bank demanded excessive amount from the petitioner and has deficiency of service?
8. Whether petitioner is entitled to get compensation from the O.P.?
9. Complainant produced the photocopy of certificate of sponsorship, letters, loan Agreement, voucher of Barnali Stores, receipts, loan Statement, Pass Book, Statement of Loan Account, original loan sanction memo, expense letters, cash memo, field enquiry report, loan account. Complainant also submitted his statement on affidavit.
10. Opposite party on the other hand, produced the Loan Sanction Memo, Letters of Utilization, Letters, Current Account Statement. Opposite party also submitted the statement on affidavit of one witness, Mritwika Debbarma, Gr-IV Officer of opposite party-Bank. 
11. Mr. Prabal Kumar Ghosh, Ld. Counsel for appellant has submitted that the appellant-complainant received in total Rs.2,85,000/- and he has paid Rs.2,83,880/-, thus the Bank is not entitled to recover any amount from him. Monthly installment including the interest i.e. EMI was higher in side than that of similarly situated person who had availed loan under the same scheme and had obtained loan from other Bank and was extended subsidy for repayment of loan sanctioned and no hypothecation was required in that case and the amount of the installment was also much less i.e. Rs.1,900/- after deducting the subsidy amount from the total loan. He has also submitted that the Bank-opposite parties did not inform the appellant-complainant regarding the percentage of interest per annum.
12. Mr. Gouri Sankar Bhattacharjee, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent-opposite parties, Bank while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that appellant-complainant was provided the letter dated 06.02.2014 i.e. the proposal for sanction of term loan which he has also acknowledged vide his acceptance letter dated 04.03.2014 written by the General Manager of the Head Office of Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd. to the Branch Manager, Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Secretariat Branch i.e. the Disbursing Authority of the loan. Thus the Bank did not commit any negligence while sanctioning and disbursing the loan amount and there was no deficiency of service. He has further submitted that the appellant-complainant while agreed to pay the entire loan amount including the interest within 60 installments, but fact remains that he did not pay any single farthing till the second installment i.e. Rs.1,85,000/- was disbursed deducting an amount of Rs.51,880/- on the basis of his own letter dated 10.12.2014. He has again submitted that the appellant-complainant before approaching the learned District Forum did not approach to the opposite parties-Bank Authority regarding his grievance. He has also submitted that the complainant was given one time opportunity to settle the disputes with the Bank, but he did not take up any step for such settlement, only to harass the Bank. Regarding submission of collateral document, Mr. Bhattacharjee, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the complainant was not forced to offer any collateral document, but he himself voluntarily created the collateral security of his land property offering the same to the Bank. He has finally contended that the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground that the complainant did not make party to the GM, DIC, West Tripura or Khadi and Village Industries who agreed to provide the subsidy of Rs.1,05,000/-, but ultimately released an amount of Rs.75,000/- as subsidy i.e. Rs.30,000/- less than the committed amount. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, for non-disbursement of subsidy by the GM, DIC, West Tripura or Khadi and Village Industries, the Bank Authority should not be responsible and liable for any deficiency of service as contended by the complainant.
13. We have considered the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the parties as well as impugned judgment. From the impugned judgment it appears that the learned District Forum has considered the loan agreement signed by both the complainant and the opposite party and not only that, the learned District Forum also discussed the evidence of appellant-complainant and one Mrittika Debbarma, O.P.W.1 and after discussing the same passed the impugned judgment. We have also considered the evidence on record from which it appears that admittedly as per Clause-11 of the loan sanction memo, the loan is recoverable by 60 equal installments and monthly EMI was fixed to Rs.6,458/- from the next month of first disbursement. More so, till 12.05.2017, the total due amount was Rs.1,42,874/- on the loan account of the complainant including the interest. It also appears from the joint field enquiry report that there is no existence of decorator business of the complainant for which he took the loan, rather he used the money for one grocery unit without prior intimation to the Bank Authority. For ready reference Paragraph-8 to 12 of the impugned judgment are quoted hereunder:-

“8. From the statement of loan account it is found that on 04.03.14 Rs.1 lacs was disbursed and on 10.12.14 Rs.1,85,000/- was disbursed. So, Rs.2,85,000/- was disbursed by the O.P. bank. On 16.09.14 subsidy Rs.75,000/- was paid by Khadi & Village Industry. So, Khadi and Village Industry did not pay Rs.1,0,5,000/- as stated by the petitioner. 

9. Mritwika Debbarma, O.P.W.1 stated that sanction letter was accepted with all terms and conditions by the petitioner. He was defaulter when he was asked to repay the due installments. The defaulted amount was deducted. On 12.10.17 joint field enquiry was made and found that complainant misused the entire loan amount and did not set up the business of decorator and total due comes to Rs.1,42,874/-.

10. Petitioner Pradip Shil stated that O.P. bank had taken Rs.51,880/- for depositing of balance amount Rs.1,85,000/- but this is not found in the statement of account. Rs.1 lac was deducted as installment which was not paid regularly by the petitioner.

11. From the statement of account it is found that till 10.12.14 after 9 months of receiving the first installment no amount was paid by the petitioner. With interest balance was Rs.32,640/- on 10.12.14. On 10.12.14 Rs.1,85,000/- was disbursed and on the same date and defaulted installment amount Rs.51,880/- was deducted. Petitioner did not pay 3 installments thereafter. But installment of Rs.6500/- was paid on 09.03.15. Thereafter did not pay 2 installments. On 30.05.15 he paid Rs.12,000/- and thereafter did not pay 8 installments. From 30.05.17 again he did not pay 7 installments.

12. From the scrutiny of the statement of accounts it is found that out of 60 installments he did not pay about 30 installments. For such default the loan amount on collection of interest increased. For non-payment of subsidy amount about Rs.25,000/- O.P. bank is not liable. O.P. bank received Rs.75,000/- from the Khadi & Village Industry so rest amount petitioner is duty bound to pay as promised by him.  He is to follow the loan agreement strictly.

From the above quoted paragraphs of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned District Forum after discussing the evidence on record and considering the statement of accounts as produced dismissed the complaint petition by way of passing the impugned judgment.

According to us, the learned District Forum did not commit any error while passing the impugned judgment, rather very rightly passed the impugned judgment dismissing the complaint petition as complainant failed to make out any prima facie case against the opposite party-Bank Authority. Thus it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned judgment.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura