DATE OF FILING                   :            16-08-2013.

DATE OF S/R                         :            18-09-2012.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER       :          30-01-2013.

Jayanta Nath Das,

s/o. Rabin Das,

residing at Kali Prasad Banerjee Lane, P.S. Bantra,

District –Howrah,

PIN – 711101. --------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

Versus   -

1.            General Manager,

representing U.Co. Bank.

10, Brabourne Road, P.S. Hare Street,

Kolkata – 700001.

2.            Senior Branch Manager,

representing U.Co. Bank,

Belilious Road Branch,

158/4, Belilious Road, P.S. Bantra,

Howrah – 711101.

3.            Post Master,

Kadamtala Post Office,

Kadamtala, Howrah,

PIN -711101-------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya,  M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

The instant case was filed by complainant   U/S 12 of the  C.P.  Act, 1986,

as amended against the O.Ps.  alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ),  2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.P. nos. 1 & 2,  UCO Bank to return the seven numbers of K.V.P. Certificates  and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- for causing prolonged harassment and mental agony together with a litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/- as the o.p. bank authority in spite of repeated requests did not return the seven numbers of K.V.Ps. deposited as security against the demand loan dated 16-01-2008 which has already been repaid.

The o.p. nos. 1 & 2,  UCO Bank Authority in their written version

contended interalia that another loan under B.S.K.P. Scheme is due from the complainant and yet to recover ; that the bank withheld the K.V.Ps. by exercising its right of general lien and the bank has a right of retaining the same as the maturity value of the K.V.Ps. comes to Rs. 1,40,000/-. So no question of deficiency in service does arise. 

Notices were served upon o.ps. O.p. no. 3 did not  appear and file written

version. So, the case was heard ex parte against o.p. no.  3.

4.            Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.                            Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.             Admittedly the demand loan dated 16-01-2008 has already been repaid. The o.p. bank in their written version in para 5 admitted the settlement of entire demand loan dated 16-01-2008. In spite of repayment of the loan amount in full and final settlement of the o.p. bank's claim, the o.p. has been withholding the seven numbers of K.V.P. Certificates of Rs. 10,000/- each, kept as security. Strangely enough, the maturity dates already expired on 24-06-2012. We are distressed to learn that these K.V.P. Certifictes were not kept as security for the other loan under B.S.K.P. Scheme disbursed on 01-03-2008. The complainant never defaulted in payment of installments and the stipulated period of repayment of loan  expired on 01-04-2003. The pertinent question creeps in how the o.p. bank can arbitrarily divert the K.V.P. Certificates of repaid loan against the completely separate loan under B.S.K.P. Scheme. If they were apprehensive, they could have asked to the complainant for security in any other form. On the contrary, they have in a  high handed manner withheld the certificates which already got matured on 24-06-2012. This conduct of the o.p. bank come with the definition of unfair trade practice as enjoined U/S 2(1)(r) and deficiency in service 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Had the complainant been defaulter in repayment of loan, the position would have otherwise. The stipulated period i.e., dated 01-04-2013 is yet to expire. The o.p. bank cannot have any right and authority to withhold the K.V.P. Certificates in the garb of general lien.  

5.                            We are, therefore, of the clear view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

                Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

                That the C. C. Case No.  96 of 2012 ( HDF 96 of 2012 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against o.p. nos. 1 &  2 and ex parte against the   O.P. no. 3 without costs.   

                The O.P. nos. 1 & 2  be directed to return the seven number of K.V.Ps. to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order.  

                The o.p. nos. 1 & 2  be further  directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant for causing prolonged harassment and agony. 

                The complainant is further entitled to a litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/- from the o.p. nos. 1 & 2.

                The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

                Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.