Tripura

StateCommission

A/2/2017

Sri. Jhutan Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vijaya Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Surajit Chaudhuri

27 Feb 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

 

Case No.A.2.2017

 

 

 

1. Sri Jhutan Das,

S/o Sri Suresh Chandra Das,

of Nutan Nagar, Airport Road, Agartala,

P.S. Airport, P.O. Airport,

District - West Tripura,

… … … … Appellant/Complainant

 

 

1. Vijaya Bank,

Represented by its Chief Manager,

Agartala Branch, having his office at Central Road,

Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, P.O. Agartala,

District - West Tripura.

 

… … … … … Respondent/Opposite Party

 

Present

 

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                       Mr. Surajit Chaudhuri, Adv.

For the Respondent:                Mr. Santanu Bhattacharjee, Adv.

Date of Hearing and Delivery of Judgment: 27.02.2017.

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

 

U.B. Saha,J,

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the Judgment dated 06.12.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Case No. C.C. 29 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint case filed by the appellant, Sri Jhutan Das who was the complainant before the Ld. District Forum.  

2. Heard Mr. Surajit Chaudhuri, Ld. Counsel for the appellant-complainant as well as Mr. Santanu Bhattacharjee, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent-Vijaya Bank (hereinafter referred to as opposite party/Bank).
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The appellant-complainant Sri Jhutan Das had opened a CC account with the Vijaya Bank, Agartala Branch in the year 2013 and he was allowed to take maximum limit of loan amounting to Rs.25,00,000/-. Vijaya Bank, the respondent herein, issued notice upon the appellant-complainant on 18.09.2015 informing him that his business transaction was improper and accordingly, direction was given to him to refund the amount. It was also informed that the limit of the CC account was reduced to Rs.14 lacs from Rs.25 lacs. This was done without any notification. His account was classified as Non Performing Account on 30.09.2015. On 06.01.2016, the opposite party-Bank issued notice under SARFAESI Act, 2002 upon the appellant-complainant. Thereafter, step was taken for attachment of the property of the appellant-complainant. Being dissatisfied with the service of the respondent-opposite party Bank, the appellant being complainant filed the aforesaid complaint case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for compensation of Rs.1 lac along with interest.

4. The respondent-opposite party Vijaya Bank appeared and filed their written statement denying the claim of the appellant-complainant. In their written statement, it is stated that the appellant-complainant obtained the loan for commercial purpose for running his business. As his business was not running well, he decided to reduce the CC limit from Rs.25 lacs to Rs.14 lacs. As per his request, the CC limit was reduced to Rs.14 lacs. More so, the complainant was defaulter. He was not paying the installment of the loan regularly. Therefore, as per provision of SARFAESI Act 2002, steps were taken for attachment of the property mortgaged by the appellant-complainant. The Ld. District Forum took up the following points for decision of the case.

1. Whether the petition is maintainable?
2. Whether the action taken by the opposite party was improper service and complainant therefore is entitled to get compensation?

The Ld. District Forum after considering the evidence on record and hearing the parties passed the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the District Forum, the appellant-complainant filed the instant appeal.

5. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the appellant-complainant filed one application for adducing additional evidence particularly, the fact that the letter dated 31.08.2012 was not written by the appellant-complainant and he had only put his signature on the said letter. It appears from the impugned judgment that the said question was raised before the Ld. District Forum and the Ld. District Forum did not accept the contention of the appellant, as, such plea has no leg to stand. And today at this stage of hearing of the appeal, we are not allowing the prayer for adducing the additional evidence. The prayer is accordingly, rejected. We now proceed for final hearing of the appeal.
6. Mr. Chaudhuri, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment submits that the Ld. District Forum committed error by not allowing the appellant-complainant to prove his contention that the letter dated 31.08.2012 was not written by him, though admittedly, the signature on the said letter was his signature. He further urges that after the Bank account of the appellant has been classified as NPA on 30.09.2015, the appellant-complainant has deposited some amount, which has already been accepted by the Bank though the same is not permissible.
7. Mr. Bhattacharjee, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent-opposite party, Bank while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that the Ld. District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint case. He has also submitted that the complainant has admittedly taken the loan for commercial purpose and thus, has not become a ‘consumer’ and the disputes between Bank and a ‘non-consumer’ cannot be decided by the Consumers’ Court. He further submits that after passing of the impugned judgment, the appellant-complainant filed one Writ Petition being No. WP (C) 1365 2016 before the High Court of Tripura challenging the notices dated 06.01.2016 and 23.03.2016 issued under the SARFAESI Act and subsequently, the said Writ Petition was withdrawn. He has finally contended that whoever has written the letter dated 31.08.2012 that does not in any way absolve the appellant so far the contention of the said letter, as admittedly, he put his signature on the said letter and not only that he also did not disclose which Bank Officer had written the letter and whether the said letter was written against his instructions.
8. We have gone through the impugned judgment and also have considered the submission of the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties as well as the evidence on record. It appears from the record that the appellant-complainant himself requested the Branch Manager of the Bank to reduce the CC limit from Rs.25 lacs to Rs.15 lacs and ultimately, the Bank considering the business transactions of appellant-complainant reduced the same to Rs.14 lacs. It also appears from the record that one Mrs. Pratima Banik vide her letter dated 01.09.2012 requested the Branch Manager of the respondent-Bank to transfer her Fixed Deposit in favour of the CC account of Jhutan Das and the Bank also wrote a letter to Mrs. Pratima Banik to confirm about the contents of her letter. One Tapas Banik guarantor of the loanee also wrote a letter to the Branch Manager to transfer two Fixed Deposit in favour of the CC account of Jhutan Das. The Security Agreement was signed on 01.03.2012 and admittedly, the appellant-complainant was a defaulter. It is also admitted position that the Bank-respondent issued notice under section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, but no satisfactory response was received from the appellant-complainant. There is no dispute regarding the outstanding balance more than amounting to Rs.14 lacs as on 01.10.2015. According to us, the Bank-respondent rightly declared the CC account as NPA. As per agreement signed by both the parties, the respondent-Bank had taken step for realization of the outstanding balance of Rs.14,58,864/-. Thus, the Ld. District Forum very rightly decided that there was no deficiency of service found on the part of the respondent-Bank and the Bank Authority has the right to take over possession of the mortgaged property.

According to us, the Ld. District Forum did not commit any error while passing the impugned judgment and there is nothing for us to interfere with the impugned judgment.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment is affirmed. No order as to costs.

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

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura MEMBER State Commission Tripura PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura