Tripura

West Tripura

CC/51/2016

Sri Sukanta Deb. - Complainant(s)

Versus

U.C.O. Bank Branch Manager. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

06 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:   CC- 51 of  2016 

Sri Sukanta Deb,
S/O- Sri Gouranga Deb,
Gurkhabasti, P.O.- Kunjaban,
Agartala, Tripura West.         .........Complainant.

            Versus

The Branch Manager,
U.C.O. Bank District Court Branch,
Agartala, West Tripura.        .........Opposite Party.

     __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant        : Complainant in Person.
                          
For the O.Ps UCO Bank        : Sri Joydeep Paul,
                      Sri Amritlal Saha,
                      Sri Manisha Chakrbaorty, 
                      Advocates.

 

    JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:     06.10.16
                

 

J U D G M E N T
                       
                        
        This case arises on the petition filed by one Sukanta Das U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency of service by the UCO Bank District Court Branch, Agartala 
2.        Petitioner's case in short is that he had taken Commercial Vehicle Loan amounting to Rs.1,45,265 from the O.P.- U.C.O. Bank, District Court Branch, Agartala. But the Bank Authority at the time of giving notice for realization of the loan on 30-11-2015 demanded Rs.1,70,900/-. Margin money Rs.25,635/- was not deducted though it was not disbursed. Loan money is to be paid in 48 installment @ Rs.3,747/-. Petitioner paid the installment @ Rs.4000. But it was not calculated & excess interest was imposed showing overdue Rs.32,797/-. Petitioner requested the Branch Manager to rectify the account statement. But O.P denied. So this case is filed seeking redress.

3.        O.P Branch Manager appeared, filed written statement denying the claim. It is contended that Bank authority sanctioned loan of Rs 1,70,900/-. Thereafter Petitioner paid margin money Rs.25,635/-.  Complainant was defaulter for eight months. Three notice given to him for payment of over due loan. But it was not paid. This complaint is baseless. Therefore, liable to be dismissed.

4.        On the basis of contention as raised by both the parties following points cropped for determination:

        (I) Whether excess amount was demanded by the Bank Authority at the time of realization of loan money?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency of service by O.P Bank?

5.        Complainant produced Loan notice, transaction inquiry. His evidence was also recorded.
        
6.        O.P Bank authority on the other hand produced sanction letter, Demand notice, statement of accounts.
        O.P also produced statement on affidavit of Manager, UCO Bank.

7.        On the basis of evidence on record we shall now determine the points.

                        F I N D I N G S  &  D E C I S I O N.

8.        We have gone through the statement of account. It is revealed from statement of account that interest was counted on Rs.1,45,265/- not on Rs.1,70,900/- as alleged by the complainant. Branch Manager also affirmed it. It is also found that whenever petitioner paid Rs.4000/- as installment same was deducted from his balance.

9.        Petitioner pointed out that in the notice lesser amount was shown at the time issue of notice. But after few days more amount was claimed.

10.        In such case Bank is to follow the statement of account. In the statement of account no incorrectness is detected.  Petitioner is Autodriver. Loan was taken for self employment. Therefore case is maintainable.

11.        We found no deficiency of service by the Bank. However Bank should take lenient view in respect of realization of outstanding loan. Excess amount should not be demanded.

12.        In this case petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation as deficiency of service by the Bank not proved. Both the points are decided accordingly.

13.        In view of our above findings this complaint is dismissed Parties are to bear their own cost.

                                  Announced

 

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.