LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Kotak Mahindra Bank 
Submit Complaint..
C.C.CASE NO. 43 OF 2009
Sri Satyendra Nath Dutta
25, B.N.Road, P.O. & P.S. Uttarpara,
Dist.Hooghly.
….. Complainant
-vs-
1) The Collection Manager,
Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.
“APEEJAY HOUSE”
Block-C, 7th floor,
15, Park Street,
Kolkata-16.
3) Sri Balwant Singh,
Collection Head of Kotak Mahindra
Prime Ltd., “Apeejay House,
Block-C, 7th floor,
15, Park Street,
3) Sri Subrata Banerjee,
Collection Head of Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.
“Apeejay House,
Block C
7th floor,
15, Park Street,
Kolkata-16
Present : S.Basu, President
S.Basu, Member
Rita Roychowdhury Malakar, Member
Order no.11 Date 18.11.2009
The case is heard again.
The fact of the complainant’s case in a nutshell is as follows :
The complainant owing to his financial stringency in the year 2007 approached to Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. For obtaining a loan of Rs.67305/- and after completion of the process he received Rs.60719/- on 30.8.2007.
After due execution of the agreement vide no. 145532 on condition that he would have to pay Rs.3150/- per month in EMI scheme and the first instalment started on 1st October 2007 for 36 instalments. Accordingly, he paid EMI upto June 2008 continuously. Due to financial hardships he failed to pay EMI within the stipulated period for the month of July to Sept. 2008. Subsequently, he paid EMI for the month of September 2008 on 10.9.06 in connection with case no. 29936/2008 U/s 138, N.I.Act pending before the C.M.M. Bankshal Court, Kolkata . The financers to create pressure upon the petitioner /complainant served three legal notices on 20.8.08, 27.8.08. Subsequently, the financer brought Criminal cases against him for which he was arrested on or around 27.12.2008 by the Police personnel of Uttarpara P.S. U/s 138 N.I.Act issued by ACJM, Kushalgarh, Dist. Banswara, Rajasthan . He was threatened by the oPs for further harassment. The Financers then served a legal notice through S.A.Associates & Solicitors of Bangalore on 19.11.2008 claiming an amount of Rs.61703/-. Practically the OP Financer have no right to claim such an exorbitant amount against this petitioner. By filing the instant case he has prayed for a direction upon the oPs to withdraw the claim of Rs.61703/- dated on 3.1.08 and Rs.6300/- dated l9.8.08, a direction upon the OP to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for causing deficiency in service, to receive interest as per RBI Rules and guidelines, litigation cost of Rs.30,000/- and other relieves.
The OPs inspite of receipt of notices did not turn up to contest this case. Hence the case is heard exparte.
In view of the complailnant’s case the following points can be considered for proper adjudication.
(1) Whether there cause any deficiency in service on the part of the op ?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
FINDINGS
It is the case of the complainant that he obtained loan from the Ops due to his financial stringency in the year 2007. It is also admitted fact as revealed in the complaint
in paragraph 4 that he was defaulted in making EMI payment as per stipulation. Accordingly to the complaint he was defaulted in making payment from July, August, September 2008. Subsequently, he paid EMI for the month of September on 10.9.08 in connection with a criminal case filed U/s 138 N.I.Act. But he has not stated when he paid the EMI for the month of July and August 2008. He vividly stated in the complaint that the Financer took legal action viz. by a Criminal case against the complainant u/s 138 N.I.Act. The complaint clearly transpires that he was defaulted in making payment as per stipulation. As such, several cases have been instituted against him. This shows that the OP have taken legal action against the complainant for making default of payment as per stipulation of the agreement.
In view of the above facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that there cause no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. for taking recourse of Law against the complainant. Accordingly, the case is liable to be dismissed.
Hence ordered
That the case is dismissed exparte without any cost.
Hand over a copy of this order to the party free of cost.
The case is disposed of beyond the statutory period as the post of President remained vacant for a considerable period.
Bookmarks