West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/17/2015

Subhas Chandra Sen - Complainant(s)

Versus

United Bank of India. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. A.K. Dutta.

04 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.17/2015                                                                                               Date of disposal: 04/05/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  XXXXXXXXXXX.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.    

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A.K. Dutta, Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                         : Mr. S. Das, Advocate.                                   

          

 Subhas Chandra Sen, S/o late Jitendra Nath Sen, Vill. Chandpur, P.O. Sankarpur, P.S. Daspur,

 Dist. Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1)United Bank of India, Notice to be served Branch Manager, Daspur Branch, at P.O & P.S. Daspur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, PIN.721211.

2)United Bank of India, Regional Office, Notice to be served Regional Manager, at Sahid Kshudiram Bose Road, Burdge Town, P.O. Medinipur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, PIN. 721101..……………Ops.

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member.

          The case of the complainant, in a nutshell, is that he is an unemployed youth and he registered his name at Ghatal Employment Exchange and the Registration No. of the complainant is G/975/84 dated 19/05/1984.

         Here the complainant applied for registered his name for self employment scheme as registered unemployed of West Bengal.  The opposite party United Bank of India Small Industries and shall business department sanctioned the said scheme in favour of the complainant on 19/10/1987 and the OP Bank sanctioned a loan of  Rs.24,900/- for lime industry of the Complainant.

         The Bank authority sanctioned the loan by depositing the original patta bearing No.591 which is in the name of the complainant and also deposited the original exchange card of the complainant as security.

         The complainant opened the lime Industry and used to pay the loan installment to the OP Bank.

         Unfortunately due to non-experience the said lime Industry gradually closed and the complainant unable to pay the installment to the OP Bank.

Contd……………….P/2

                                                           

- ( 2 ) -

        For non payment of loan amount after long gap the OP Bank filed a pre litigation case bearing of 71 of 2014 before that Lok Adalat settled the dues on 12/4/2014 and as per the order and settlement of the Lok Adalat the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- before the OP Bank dated 14/06/2014 and on the same date the OP Bank issued no dues certificate in favour of the complainant.

         That after the payment of settlement dues before the OP Bank the complainant requested the op Bank Authority to return back the original patta and the original employment exchange card and other documents which the OP Bank received as security of loan but the OP Bank did not pay any deed to the request of the complainant as alleged by the complainant.  The complainant repeatedly request the OP Bank top return back the original documents which are lying in the custody of OP Bank.

         Having harassed mentally the complainant has no way but to file this case before the Ld. Forum.  The complainant claimed that there is a great deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank and complainant prayed for relief and damage cost.            

         The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the present complaint in their objection the OP states that the case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to file the instant complaint case against the Op.

          Ld. Advocate for the OP in their reply argued that the allegation against the Ops is not admitted as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Ops.  It is not denied by the OP Bank that Bank Authority filed a pre litigation matter for getting back their loan dues.  OP Bank also admitted the fact that Ghatal Lok Adalat passed the award for settlement of the loan dues on 12/4/2014 of  Rs.10,000/- only payable within the 12/5/2014 out of the total loan dues of Rs.47,447/-.  It is alleged by the OP Bank that the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- to the OP Bank on 30/5/2014 i.e. after the stipulated time fixed.  After receiving the award amount the OP Bank No.1 issued no dues certificate in favour of the complainant on 14/6/2014.

          Ld. Lawyer for the OP Bank states and argued that the documents which were received from the complainant were misplaced and could not be formed after searching.  The Ld. Lawyer also states that in the meantime the Branch Manager transferred from the OP Bank.  Thereafter the present Branch Manager came and assured the complainant that as soon as the documents shall be search out they will inform the complainant to take back those documents.  In the meantime complainant sent a letter dated 12/2/2015.  The OP Bank states and argued that again the new Branch Manager informed the complainant that he has not yet found the documents.  The OP Bank

Contd……………….P/3

                                                        

- ( 3 ) -

alleged that they assured the complainant to return back the documents in question after the period of year ending.  The Ld. Advocate for the Ops also argued that the complainant could not keep faith over the OP Bank No.1 and the complainant have hurriedly filed the instant case.  In there objection filed on 26/3/2015 the Op Bank states that they are ready to return back those document which have been found after severe search.  The Ld. Lawyer for the OP Bank argued that this instant case has been filed by the complainant only to harass the Bank Authority and prayed for dismissal of the instant case as there was no occasion as to the OP Bank for holding deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant.  Thus, the complainant case liable to be dismissed.      

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1)Whether the case is maintainable or not?

2)Whether there is deficiency of service against the Ops?

3)Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 3:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument for the complainant that the complainant repeatedly approached the OP Bank to return the original patta the original exchange card and other document which the Bank Authority received as security of loan.  The complainant paid the settlement amount though the industry of the complainant was closed.

             The complainant argued that this documents are valuable documents and having repeated approach to the OP Bank they could the deliver such documents which were lying in the custody of Ops and after lapse of time the alleged document had been found out and the OP Bank then ready to return back those documents.  Accordingly the act of OP Bank is a great deficiency of service to their customer.  Thus the Forum should pass necessary order for refund of the document which are lying with the OP Bank as security of loan amount to the complainant with litigation cost.

           Ld. Advocate for the OP Bank on the other hand made his reply that the OP Bank assured the complainant that they must find out the documents of the complainant and refund them as early as possible.  But the complainant could not keep faith on the OP Bank and hurriedly filed the instant case. The OP Bank states that they have found out the document and ready to return back those documents to the complainant before the Ld. Court.  So, the complainant have filed the complaint case only to harass the OP Bank and prayed that the instant  complaint case may be dismissed with cost and as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP as alleged by the complainant.           

Contd……………….P/4

 

                                                                                                 - ( 4 ) -

           We have carefully considered the case of both parties including these documentary evidence and it appears particularly in the fact that the OP Bank has delayed to return back the documents lying in the custody of OP Bank.

           Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances it is held and decided the OP NO.1 should be liable for deficiency of service and there by the complainant is merited for in terms of the prayer made in the petition of complain.  

               Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is allowed  on contest  against OP No.1.

      Op. no.1 be directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) only to the complainant on account of deficiency in service within 30 days failing which the total amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. the date of filing this case till recovery of the entire amount.

      Contesting parties be supplied with copy of the Judgement free of cost.  

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

                  Member                                                                     Member