Tripura

StateCommission

A/19/2015

Shri. Bidyut Chandra Paul - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tripura State Co operative Bank Limited & 2 Others - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. D.K Biswas , Mr. S.S Debnath

24 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION,

TRIPURA

 

 

APPEAL CASE No.A/19/2015.

 

 

 

Shri Bidyut Chandra Paul.

                  ….    ….    ….    ….    Appellant.

 

Vs

 

1. Tripura State Co-operative Bank Limited,

Represented by it Managing Director,

Amulya Market, Mantribari Road,

P.O. Agartala (West Tripura)

 

2. Branch Manager,

Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd.

Agartala Branch, HG Basak Road, Agartala.

 

3. General Manager, District Industries Centre (DIC),

Pt. Nehru Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala

 

                             ….    ….    ….    ….    Respondents.

 

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.BAIDYA,

PRESIDENT,

STATE COMMISSION

 

MRS. SOBHANA DATTA,

MEMBER,

STATE COMMISSION.

 

MR.NARAYAN CH. SHARMA,

MEMBER,

STATE COMMISSION.

              

 

For the Appellant   :         Mr. D.K. Biswas, Adv & S.S. Debnath, Adv.

For the respondent :         Mr. P.K. Paul, Adv, Mr. M.K. Roy, Adv.,

                                      Mr. P. Chakraborty, Adv. & Mr. A.K. Chaudhury, Adv.

                                           

Date of Hearing       :       14.08.2015 & 29.10.2015.

Date of delivery of Judgment: 24.11.2015.

J U D G M E N T

 

S.Baidya,J,

            This appeal filed on 28.05.2015 by the appellant-complainant Bidyut Chandra Paul under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act., 1986 is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.05.2015 in the case bearing No.CC-9 of 2013 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala whereby the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being devoid of any merit, but without any order as to costs.

2. The case of the appellant as narrated in the memo of appeal, in brief, is that the appellant after taking an entrepreneurship training, as an unemployed youth applied for a loan to the District Industries Centre (Respondent No.3) for starting a medicine business involving a capital of Rs.10.00 lakhs which was approved by the DIC and accordingly, recommended on 06.08.2010 for the  loan of Rs.10.00 lakhs to the Respondent No.1, Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and the said recommendation was for specific kind of loan “Swavalamban” which is given without any collateral security intending to spread industrial activity among the unemployed.
3. It is also alleged that the bank on receipt of the proposal approved the loan for 9.5 lakhs and processed for sanction and at the same time, the appellant-complainant started preparation for the proposed business, but the bank took about two years’ time in completing the process for sanction of the loan and ultimately, the recommended loan under ‘Swavalamban’ was sanctioned vide letter dated 26.04.2012 and the Managing Director of the bank forwarded the sanction order of loan to the branch for payment.  
4. It is also alleged that at that time, the branch called him and demanded a collateral security of immovable property worth Rs.12.00 lakhs and also cash security of Rs.3.5 lakhs by way of a cash certificate to be kept on lien and not only so, the bank wanted the complainant to purchase bank’s share worth Rs.24,000/- before releasing the sanctioned amount of loan.
5. It is also alleged that the complainant-appellant had no money, so, he arranged from the sanctioned sum Rs.3.5 lakhs and Rs.24,000/- and thereafter the complainant got in his hand a net amount of Rs.5,25,000/- with which it was impossible for him to start a medicine business, when the scheme was of Rs.10.00 lakhs. It is also alleged that the complainant took a house on rent of Rs.2,000/- per month and went on paying the rent regularly with the expectation of getting proper finance, but being helpless the complainant approached the Ld. District Forum after ten months of the sanction.
6. It is also alleged that the bank received the notice of the case, but did not appear, rather the bank started the recovery of the loan by adjusting the money from the fixed deposit and thereafter the Ld. Forum disposed of the case by passing an ex parte order directing the bank to pay back the fixed deposit security amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant.
7. It is also alleged that the complainant preferred an appeal in which the bank appeared and the Appellate Commission remanded the case to the Ld. District Forum with certain directions for fresh adjudication of the matter in dispute.
8. It transpires that the Respondent No.3 (DIC) admitted the case of the complainant by filing a written statement alleging that there is no need to provide collateral security for loan up to Rs.10.00 lakhs in MSE sector as per the guideline of RBI, but did not contest the complaint petition.  
9. It is also alleged that the Ld. District Forum considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidences passed the impugned judgment and thereby being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant as appellant has preferred the instant appeal on the grounds that the acceptance of the recommendation of the DIC to sanction loan under Swavalamban scheme itself bind it with duty to sanction in terms of the scheme-guidelines, any other method or manner is impermissible under the law, that the Ld. Forum failed to appreciate that the bank had the option to refuse the loan on Swavalamban as recommended, if it was beyond their purview, that the Ld. Forum failed to appreciate that the loan sanctioned was under Swavalamban as clearly mentioned in the sanction-letter, but the operation of the loan was in pernicious violation of the scheme which is, not only a contradictory conduct on the part of the bank, but also unbecoming of a public body which works for public good, that the Ld. Forum failed to appreciate this clear deficiency in service on the part of the bank and hence, the complainant has preferred the instant appeal praying for setting aside the impugned judgment.
10. It transpires that during the pendency of the appeal the Respondent nos. 1 & 2 (Bank) filed an application supported by an affidavit on 25.08.2015 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with some documents for considering the same as additional evidence. It also transpires that the appellant filed a verified written objection on 03.09.2015 against the above mentioned application of the Respondent nos. 1 & 2. It also transpires that thereafter the Respondent nos. 1 & 2 filed a supplementary application on 09.10.2015 supported by an affidavit along with some other documents for considering the same as additional documentary evidence. It also transpires that the appellant filed a verified written objection on 29.10.2015 against the supplementary application of the respondent bank. It further transpires that at the time of final hearing of the appeal, the appellant filed a synopsis of argument.
11. It is also found necessary to mention that the appeal has been heard along with above mentioned applications of the respondent-bank and the written objections of the appellant.

 

Points for Consideration

12. The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Ld. District Forum was legal, proper and justified in dismissing the complaint by the impugned judgment and
2. Whether the judgment under challenge in this appeal should be set aside as submitted by the appellant.

 

Decisions with Reasons

 

13. Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity.
14. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant at the out set submitted that the entire Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable in the Consumer Fora including this Commission. He also submitted that what provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the Consumer Fora, the same have been provided under section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He also submitted that the Respondent nos. 1 & 2 during the pendency of the appeal at first filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. along with some documents for consideration as additional evidence and thereafter also the Respondent nos. 1 & 2 filed a supplementary application with a prayer for taking some other documents as additional evidence for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute. He also submitted that the appellant has opposed both the applications by filing written objections alleging, inter-alia, that the Consumer Protection Act is a special legislation, procedure for which is prescribed to render quick justice to the consumer and in order to achieve that object, the Act has drastically excluded certain procedural steps which are otherwise available in the Civil Court. He also submitted that when the Act allows the limited application of the C.P.C. in the trial stage, it excludes all provisions of C.P.C. at the appellate stage. He further submitted that the applications of the Respondent nos. 1 & 2 for adducing additional evidence at the appellate stage not being permissible under the C.P. Act, 1986 before this Commission, the same are liable to be rejected. He also submitted that there is no scope to adduce any additional evidence before this Commission at the appellate stage.
15. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that admittedly, the appellant Bidyut Chandra Paul is an unemployed youth and he approached the District Industries Centre (DIC) for starting a medicine business for which he submitted a project report, the cost of which would be Rs.10.00 lakhs. He also submitted that the DIC accepted the project report and recommended and sponsored the case of the complainant to the Respondent No.1 Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd. for granting loan to the appellant Bidyut Chandra Paul under Swavalamban scheme with a direction to the complainant to contact with the Branch Manager of TSCB, Lake Chaumuhani Branch, Agartala for completing necessary formalities and recasting of the scheme, if necessary. He also submitted that the General Manager of TSCB issued a sanction order of loan of Rs.9.50 lakhs under Swavalamban scheme sponsored by GM, DIC, West Tripura.
16. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the Respondent No.1 (TSCB) took about two years’ time unnecessarily and ultimately, issued a sanction order of loan. He also submitted that, under the Swavalamban scheme there is no question of taking any collateral security from the borrower as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), but the Respondent No.1 while issuing sanction order of loan, directed the appellant for keeping immovable property worth Rs.12.00 lakhs, lien of TDR valued at Rs.3.50 lakhs as collateral security for getting the said loan amount. He also submitted that not only so, the appellant was asked by the bank to purchase co-operative bank’s share for an amount of Rs. 24,000/- before drawal of the loan amount. He also submitted that being unemployed youth, the appellant had no money and in need of loan amount for starting his medicine business, he was compelled to keep immovable properties of his father-in-law valued at Rs.12.00 lakhs and also kept Rs.3.5 lakhs as fixed deposit on lien out of the total amount of loan. He also submitted that the appellant had to purchase share of the bank worth Rs.24,000/- from the said loan amount and as such, the appellant only got a net amount of Rs.5,25,000/- from the bank. He also submitted that when there was a need of loan amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs for starting a medicine business, the appellant could not start his medicine business with such meagre amount of Rs.5,25,000/- only.
17. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the bank granted the loan under Swavalamban scheme, but intentionally violated the guidelines of the RBI and compelled the appellant to keep collateral security for getting the loan from the bank. He also submitted that the bank acted illegally in taking the collateral security from the appellant for granting such loan under Swavalamban scheme. He also submitted that it is true that the appellant in his said helpless condition was compelled to keep collateral security as demanded by the bank, but the keeping of collateral security for granting the loan under the Swavalamban scheme being beyond the guidelines of the RBI is not legally sustainable. He also submitted that it is true that following the conditions for keeping collateral security, the appellant admitted that he would be bound by all the terms and conditions contained in the sanction-order, but such an undertaking given by the appellant contrary to the guidelines of the RBI does not make it legal and binding upon the appellant. He also submitted that if it was not possible on the part of the TSCB to grant collateral security free loan under Swavalamban scheme to the appellant, the TSCB was at liberty to refuse to grant such loan to the appellant under the said Swavalamban scheme. He also submitted that the bank, in one hand, used the word ‘Swavalamban’ scheme in the sanction order of loan, on the other hand, in violation of the guidelines of RBI imposed condition for keeping both immovable property and cash amount as collateral security for getting such loan, but that is not permissible under the Swavalamban scheme. He also submitted that in view of the above position, the only way is open to the bank is to reschedule the entire loan matter keeping consistency with the guidelines of the RBI for granting loan to the appellant-complainant under the Swavalamban scheme by way of releasing the immovable property worth Rs.12.00 lakhs and the term loan of Rs.3.5 lakhs as fixed deposit so that the appellant-complainant can start his medicine business without any further delay.
18. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 & 2, Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd. (TSCBL) submitted that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not provide any opportunity to either of the parties for amendment of the complaint or the written objection/written statement. He also submitted that the said Act does not make any provision allowing either of the parties to file any application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. for adducing additional evidence at the appellate stage. He also submitted that Section 13(4) of the said Act provides to follow some procedural laws as prescribed in the C.P.C. for the disposal of the consumer disputes before the Consumer Fora. He also submitted that there is no exclusion-clause in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 debarring the Consumer Fora to follow any procedural law mentioned in the C.P.C. for the proper, speedy and effective disposal of the consumer disputes with a view to render just and substantial justice to the parties. He also submitted that following the said principle, the Consumer Fora are allowing amendment application for the amendment of the complaint, although there is no provision in the C.P. Act, 1986 to exercise any power of amendment by the Consumer Fora. He also submitted that similarly, in an appropriate case and also for the effective disposal of the consumer disputes the State Commission may exercise the power of taking and considering the additional evidences at the appellate stage as provided under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He further submitted that having no exclusion-clause in the C.P. Act, the Hon’ble State Commission may entertain the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. by way of accepting and taking additional evidences for the just and substantial justice to the parties litigating before it and from that stand point, the application filed by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. and the supplementary application filed to that application are very well legally maintainable before this Hon’ble Commission. He also submitted that the Hon’ble Commission with a view to render just and substantial justice is legally entitled to consider the documents so filed by the parties as additional evidences for effective disposal of the matter in issue finally. He also submitted that in view of the above facts and circumstances and having no exclusion-clause in the C.P. Act, the submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and also the objection so raised in the written objections filed by the appellant are not acceptable.
19. The Ld. Counsel Mr. P.K. Paul for the respondent nos.1 & 2 submitted that admittedly, complainant with a view to start medicine business applied before the respondent No.3, the District Industries Centre (DIC) for recommendation of a loan of Rs.10.00 lakhs as per project report under Swavalamban scheme. He also submitted that the DIC knew very well that Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd. (TSCBL) has not been enlisted to grant any collateral security free loan to any intending borrower under Swavalamban scheme. He also submitted that prior to the submission of loan application the respondent No.1 on 09.07.2010 submitted an application before the Chief Executive Officer, Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro & Small Enterprises, MSME Development Centre for Extension of the Facilities of Credit Scheme of  CGFTMSE for bankers to TSCBL. He also submitted that on 09.08.2010, the Director, Directorate of Industries & Commerce, Government of Tripura requested the Chairman, Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises for Extension of the Facilities of Credit Guarantee Scheme of CGFTMSE for bankers to TSCBL. He also submitted that Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce, Government of Tripura sent a letter on 12-18/04/2012 requesting the Chairman, CGFTMSE for inclusion of Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd. as Eligible Lending Institution for availing benefit under the Credit Guarantee Scheme of CGTMSE, copy of which was sent to the Dy. Director to the Government of India, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME), Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi for appropriate action.
20. The Ld. Counsel Mr. Paul also submitted that the appellant has relied on the guidelines of RBI which provides for extending the limit of collateral security free loan to the MSE sector (Micro & Small Enterprises) from Rs.5.00 lakhs to Rs.10.00 lakhs. He also submitted that as TSCBL has not been enlisted for providing collateral security free credit facilities under CGS, TSCBL at the relevant time, it was not legally entitled to provide any collateral security free loan to any borrower even under the Swavalamban scheme. He also submitted that only those Financial Institutions who have been enlisted to advance any loan under Credit Scheme of CGTMSE are legally entitled to grant collateral security free loan to the intending borrower. He also submitted that the DIC knew very well that the Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd. has not been included in the list to grant any collateral security free loan, but knowing fully well recommended for grant of loan to the appellant under Swavalamban scheme.
21. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that having no scope for the TSCB to grant any collateral security free loan granted and issued a loan sanctioned order for an amount of Rs.9.5 lakhs on 30.03.2012 containing the terms of furnishing collateral security vide sanction-letter dated 26.04.2012 and the complainant by his letter of acceptance dated 21.05.2012 accepted all the terms and conditions for availing such loan in the name of Swavalamban scheme. He also submitted that the complainant withdrew the loan amount after keeping immovable property worth Rs.12.00 lakhs and cash amout of Rs.3.5 lakhs and also purchasing the share of the bank worth Rs.24,000/- from the loan amount as collateral security. He also submitted that now, the complainant cannot say that the terms and conditions of the loan as per sanctioned order are not binding upon him. He also submitted that as the recommendation made by the DIC indicates for granting loan under Swavalamban scheme, the Managing Director of the respondent No.1 used the words ‘Swavalamban scheme’ in the sanctioned order. He also submitted that although the words ‘Swavalamban scheme’ has been used in the sanctioned order, but as the bank has not been enlisted to grant any collateral security free loan, the bank sanctioned the loan as per its usual terms and conditions for granting loan to an intending borrower with a view to securing the smooth repayment of the loan amount.
22. The Ld. Counsel Mr. Paul also submitted that it is no doubt a bonafide mistake on the part of Managing Director of the respondent No.1 in using the words ‘Swavalamban scheme’ in the sanctioned order, but in fact, it was not a collateral security free loan and knowing fully well the appellant-complainant accepted the terms and conditions of the loan and withdrew the loan amount without making any farthing towards repayment. He also submitted that the respondent nos.1 & 2 produced a number of documents as additional documents for proper disposal of the case at the appellate stage which the bank could not produce in the District Forum. He also submitted that if all the documents are taken into consideration, it would be evident that appellant-complainant availed the loan knowing fully well that it was not a collateral security free loan and as such, he accepted the terms and conditions of the loan and withdrew the loan amount from the bank. He also submitted that in view of the above fact, the question of rescheduling the loan by releasing the immovable property and fixed deposit amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs as submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant does not arise at all. He also submitted that the Ld. District Forum meticulously considered the cases of the parities and having no merit in the complaint dismissed it. He also submitted that the additional documents produced by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 at the appellate stage will also support the findings of the Ld. District Forum and as such, the appeal preferred by the appellant-complainant being devoid of any merit should be dismissed and the impugned judgment should be affirmed.
23. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, the evidences both oral and documentary, the impugned judgment, the memo of appeal, the application and the supplementary application of the respondent nos.1 & 2 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C., the written objections filed by the appellant against the said applications and the written argument submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. We have also considered the argument advanced by the Ld. Counsels of both sides at length. Going through the same, we find certain admitted facts. Admittedly, the appellant-complainant with a view to start a medicine business under Swavalamban scheme submitted a project report before the respondent No.3, the DIC with a proposal for granting a loan of Rs.10.00 lakhs. It is also admitted fact that the DIC recommended the scheme of the complainant and sponsored the respondent No.1 Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd. (TSCBL) for granting loan to the complainant under Swavalamban scheme. It is also admitted fact that the respondent No.1 granted a term loan of Rs.9.5 lakhs using the term ‘Swavalamban scheme’ in favour of the complainant and issued a loan sanction-order containing the terms and conditions for availing such term loan. It is also admitted fact that the complainant in writing accepted all the terms and conditions of the loan as mentioned in the sanction-order. It is also admitted fact that following the terms and conditions of the loan sanction-order, the complainant kept immovable property of his father-in-law Shri Krishna Das Paul worth rupees about 12.00 lakhs and cash certificate of Rs.3.5 lakhs out of the total sanctioned loan amount and also purchased some shares of the Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd. worth Rs.24,000/- out of the total loan sanctioned amount as collateral security. It is also admitted that the complainant withdrew the loan amount from the respondent-bank without any protest.
24. It transpires that at the time of hearing appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant much relied upon the guidelines of the RBI dated 06.05.2010, wherefrom we find that the RBI issued guidelines limiting for collateral security free loans to the Micro and Small Enterprises (MSE) sector from Rs.5.00 lakhs to Rs.10.00 lakhs under Credit Guarantee Scheme (CGS). Now, it is to be seen whether the respondent No.1, TSCBL has been authorized to grant collateral security free loan to the MSE sector as per guidelines of the RBI. This guideline of RBI is applicable to the banks directing not to accept collateral security in the case of grant of loan up to Rs.10.00 lakhs to units in the MSE sector. It is nobody’s case that the respondent No.1 has been enlisted to grant collateral security free loan to units in the MSE sector. It is also nobody’s case that if the respondent No.1 grants any loan to Micro and Small Enterprises up to Rs.10.00 lakhs as collateral security free loan, the RBI or any other authority would remain as a guarantor for repayment of the said loan. In that case, it is expected that the respondent-bank would add terms and conditions in the loan sanctioned order to ensure the smooth repayment of such loan amount including interest.
25. It transpires from the letter dated 09.07.2010 (Ext.F series) that the Managing Director of the respondent-bank submitted application before the Chief Executive Officer, Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises for extending the facilities of Credit Scheme of CGTMSE for bankers to Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd. (TSCBL). It also transpires from the letter dated 09.08.2010 issued by Director, (I&C), Government of Tripura that the Director requested the said Chairman for extension of the facilities of Credit Guarantee Scheme of CGTMSE for bankers to Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd. (TSCBL) for enlisting the respondent No.1 to get the benefit under CGTMSE. It also transpires from another letter dated 12/18.04.2011 that the Principal Secretary, (I&C), Government of Tripura requested the said Chairman for inclusion of TSCBL as ‘Eligible Landing Institution’ for availing benefit under the Credit Guarantee Scheme of CGTMSE. From the above, it is found an admitted position that respondent No.1, Tripura State Co-operative Bank Ltd. has not been enlisted to get the benefit of Credit Scheme of CGTMSE for granting loan up to the limit of Rs.10.00 lakhs as collateral security free loan.
26. As the respondent No.1 has not been enlisted to get the facilities of Credit Scheme of CGTMSE for bankers, the guidelines of the RBI is found not applicable to the respondent No.1. It is true that under the Swavalamban scheme, the complainant was entitled to get a term loan of Rs.10.00 lakhs as collateral security free loan, but before making recommendation by the DIC sponsoring the project of the complainant to the respondent No.1, it was incumbent upon the DIC to ascertain whether the respondent No.1 was legally empowered to grant any collateral security free loan up to the limit of Rs.10.00 lakhs as per guidelines of the RBI. It appears that the DIC practically did not make any enquiry in this regard. It is also true that when the respondent No.1 was not empowered to grant collateral security free loan to the complainant, it was incumbent upon the respondent-bank to inform the DIC and the complainant that the bank was unable to grant term loan as recommended by the DIC as collateral security free loan. Here, we find that both the DIC and the respondent No.1 were at fault in this regard. But the fact remains that the Managing Director of the bank used the term ‘Swavalamban scheme’ in the sanction-order containing various terms and conditions regarding the collateral security to be kept by the complainant for availing such term loan. It is also a fact that the complainant accepted all the terms and conditions of the term loan and withdrew the loan amount from the bank. Had the complainant not been agreeable to keep the collateral security as per sanction-order, he could easily refuse to accept the said loan amount as per sanction-order of loan, but the complainant did nothing in this regard, rather accepting all the terms and conditions he withdrew the loan amount keeping collateral security as per sanction-order. Although there was a fault on the part of the bank, but that has been minimised and practically waived by submitting the letter of acceptance of the loan by the complainant containing all the terms and conditions. It transpires that the complainant raised objection only when he already withdrew the loan amount from the bank. The sanction-order of loan granted by the bank and the acceptance of the said loan containing all the terms and conditions in writing by the complainant have made the same a lawful contract which is binding upon both the bank and the complainant. So, at this stage, the complainant cannot say that the said contract is not binding upon him and that his withdrawal of loan amount must be treated as collateral security free loan.
27. It transpires that respondent nos.1 & 2 submitted the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. with a prayer for accepting photocopy of the deed of simple mortgage of the immovable property belonging to Shri Krishna Das Paul and also the photocopy of the No Objection/Declaration of said Krishna Das Paul. It also transpires that the respondent-bank by the supplementary application submitted the original deed of simple mortgage of the property of Krishna Das Paul, the application for term loan of the complainant along with appraisal report of the bank, the letter of waiver and the letter of undertaking executed by the complainant and also the letter of the complainant for opening a fixed deposit account for an amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs. It also appears to us that the existence of all such documents are very much known to the complainant as he executed all the documents knowing fully well the content of the same. It also appears that all the documents are very well connected with the loan amount granted to the complainant by the respondent bank. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above, we are of the view that there is no legal bar to accept and consider the above mentioned documents as additional evidences at the appellate stage. That being our view to find out the truth, the application of the respondent No.1 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. and the supplementary application of the respondent No.1 mentioned earlier are very well legally maintainable before this Commission. Furthermore, going through the documents produced by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 at the appellate stage we find that no new case is made out, even if those documents are accepted and considered at the appellate stage. So, having no exclusion clause in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in view of the above, we are of the view that the objection raised by the Ld. Counsel by the appellant by filing written objections and also as submitted in course of hearing of the appeal regarding adducing of documents at the appellate stage as additional evidence is not tenable in the eye of law.
28. It has already been mentioned that the respondent-bank has not been enlisted to avail the facilities of Credit Scheme of CGTMSE for bankers, so, the respondent-bank cannot grant any collateral security free loan to the intending borrower as per the guidelines of RBI dated 06.05.2010 relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant as the same is not applicable to the respondent-bank (TSCBL). The complainant-appellant as P.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted that as per Sub-clause (ii) of clause 8 of sanction-memo, Rs.3.50 lakhs was required to be deposited by him before withdrawal of the loan amount. He also admitted in his cross-examination that by a letter dated 21.05.2012, he accepted all the terms and conditions laid down in the sanction memo dated 26.04.2012. He also admitted that the amount of Rs.3.50 lakhs deposited by him was accepted in a fixed deposit scheme with interest @9.5% per annum. He also admitted that when he defaulted in making payment of loan amount, the amount of the fixed deposit together with interest was adjusted towards his outstanding loan amount after encashment of the F.D. certificate. From the terms and conditions of the sanction-memo, it transpires that the respondent-bank is legally entitled to make adjustment of the fixed deposit amount against the outstanding loan, if the complainant borrower is found a defaulter in making repayment of loan amount. So, the respondent-bank committed no error in encashing the fixed deposit amount including interest accrued thereon against the outstanding loan amount for adjustment. It further transpires that the complainant himself being desirous of opening a fixed deposit account with the respondent-bank for an amout of Rs.3.50 lakhs submitted the application on 17.05.2012 and on his prayer bank kept the said amount as fixed deposit. Here also we find no fault in the bank. Once the complainant accepted all the terms and conditions of the sanction-memo of loan and withdrew the loan amount accordingly, there is no scope on the part of the complainant to say that bank illegally took immovable property of worth Rs.12.00 lakhs and fixed deposit of Rs.3.50 lakhs as collateral security illegally. It has already been mentioned that the respondent-bank not being enlisted to avail the facility of Credit Scheme of CGTMSE, the guideline of the RBI is not as applicable to the respondent-bank and as such, such guideline of RBI, in the instant case, is found not in any manner helpful to the complainant-appellant.
29. It has been alleged that the respondent-bank unnecessarily took about two years’ time to grant the loan. But we find that there is no truth in such allegation, because the recommendation letter of the DIC (respondent no.3) was received by bank only on 30.09.2011 as appearing from the reference of the loan sanction memo dated 26.04.2012. It appears that thereafter complainant took some days’ time to complete the formalities as per the terms and conditions of the sanction memo of loan. So, we find that it is a mere allegation having no truth behind it. We, therefore, are unable to accept the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant made in this regard.
30. We have gone through the impugned judgment and found that the Ld. District Forum meticulously considered the facts and circumstances of the case and arrived at the conclusion and passed the impugned judgment dismissing the complaint holding that the complaint is devoid of any merit. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact of acceptance of all the terms and conditions of the sanction-order of loan voluntarily by the complainant, it has not been established that the respondent-bank was negligent and deficient in providing proper service in any manner to the complainant-appellant. That being the position, we are of the view that the impugned judgment calls for no interference by this Commission and as such, it is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
31. In the result, the appeal fails. The impugned judgment dated 06.05.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala in case No.CC-09 of 2013 is hereby affirmed. There is no order as to costs.

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura