1. The complainant has filed this case against O.P for         deficiency and negligency in their services causing loss to petitioner.
2. The petitioner’s case in brief is that the petitioner is the consumer of SBI Main Branch Dumka, having its cash and credit account no. 22281418232 the limit Rs 10,00,000 in the name of M/S Savitry Enterprises and complainant deposited security as a granter for the above cash and credit accounts. The petitioner applied for reducing the limit from Rs 10,00,000 to Rs 5,00,000 on which the O.P allowed an application and on 14.03.2014 withdraw Rs 234428 from the security amount of the petitioner no. 30530892505 and 30591052393 respectively of the guarantor, Baldeo Saha ,father and Rs 15572 from CC account of this petitioner and reduce the limit from Rs 10,00,000 to Rs 7,00,000. The petitioner again approached to Field officer, main branch, Dumka that is O.P no. 2 to reduce the limit from Rs 7,00,000 to Rs 5,00,000 on which the Field Officer adjusted that after withdrawing amount of Rs 3,00,000 fixed deposit out of 5 fixed deposit and after depositing Rs 25,000 cash the petitioners limit will be reduced to Rs 5,00,000 and on which the petitioner deposited Rs 25,000 cash on 29.04.14 but the Field Officer withdrawal the money from 2 fixed deposit and also withdrawal Rs 72,562 from the cash credit account and reduced the limit to Rs 5,00,000, but the entry of Rs 15572 and Rs 72662 has not been entered in the account of the petitioner and when this petitioner asked from the Field Officer about the above withdrawal of the amount from his cash credit and refused to help him and the petitioner account requested the Field Officer to deposit the security amount of Rs 40090 from fixed deposit account no. 11281432868 in the cash credit amount of the petitioner but he refused to do so. And thereafter the petitioner filed the petition on 05.06.14 addressing to the Branch Manager State Bank Of India, Dumka with a request to inquire the matter and legal action may be taken against the said withdrawal of Rs 15572 and Rs 72562 from this cash credit account no. 11281418232 but vide his letter no. DBD/SME/18 dt. 09.06.14 informed the petitioner that no such entry of withdrawal of said amount was found.  
3. And thereafter the petitioner under Right Of Information Act 2005 want some information from Branch Manager, S.B.O, Dumka on 17.06.14 and the  Branch SBI, Dumka, Main Branch and sent to the Branch Manager SBI, Dumka vide speed post no. R.J.O. 72490900.1.N dt. 18.06.13 but no reply was sent by the O.P within 30 days then he filed an appeal before Regional Manager, SBI, Dudhani, Dumka but he also could not take any action nor supply any information as such this petitioner filed appeal before Chief Information ComM/Sion, Jharkhand, Ranchi for taking legal action against Branch Manager, SBI Dumka and Regional Manager SBI, Dudhani, Dumka and directed to supply the required information to the petitioner which is pending for disposal.
4. It is further submitted that O.P without the knowledge and information of this petitioner adjusted Rs 15572 and Rs 72562 from C.C account of the petitioner. And later on Regional Manager, Regional Business Officer, Dumka send the information and stated that maturity date of Kishan Vikas Patra No. 10086, 10087, 10088, 10089 and 10090 was 20.04.14 but by his S.T.D.R No. 33272198358 dt. 06.09.13 deposited Rs 10,000 only. As such, this interest of 4 months could not be deposited in the account of the petitioner. And due to negligency of services of the petitioner the interest of 4 months has been lapsed. The Regional Business Officer, Dumka vide his reference RBO/AKP/108 dt. 29^th august 2014 send information that deposit money Rs 262300 and withdrawal of Rs 194480 + Rs 7269 + Rs 50 that is Rs 201799 as such Rs 6050 is laying in his account but further he has informed that on 10.05.14 there is  Rs 16593 is laying in the account of the petitioner as such there are  contradiction of his information. And due to negligency in the services of petitioner, the petitioner could not withdrawal the amount and reputation of the firm became damaged due to closing of C.C. account of the petitioners firm. The petitioner prays for following relief:-   

1. That an order may kindly be passed to continue the C.C account of the petitioner.
2. The clear statement of C.C account of the petitioner shall kindly be supplied to the petitioner.
3. The petitioner could not withdraw the required amount from his account as such the business of the petitioner hamper causing loss of Rs 50,000
4. Due to deficiency and negligency of the petitioner the Bank, the petitioner mentally and physically harassed.
5. That this O.P Bank may kindly be directed to pay Rs 60,000 for deficiency and negligency of his services
6. Any other relief or reliefs the court deemed fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

5.  The O.P No. 1 and 2 that is Branch Manager State Bank of India and Field Officer has appeared and filed his W/S on 18.04.22 stating therein that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or in fact. And it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has admitted that he has availed a cash credit loan from State Bank of India, Dumka branch and deposited certain amount as security and certain sum of said security deposit was adjusted in loan account. In this context, it is hereby stated that debtor who has availed loan from Nationalised Bank, what he has taken as a loan is a public money and he is obliged to repay the same as per loan agreement. Debtor has agreed that if fails to repay the loan, banker is entitled to appropriate the proceeds of security deposit, however in the instant case the proceeds of T.D.R appropriated only when the borrower and guarantor requested to do so and in the present case the complainant availed loan, utilized the loan amount but failed and neglected to repay the same despite receiving demand letters of Bank. The bank was entitled to appropriate the proceeds of security deposit and rightly appropriate but not as alleged by the complainant. After adjustment of proceeds, sum of Rs 250425.23 + interest is outstanding bank dues against the complainant, which he neglected to pay and at last lodged this complaint only with a malafide intention to grab the public money.
6. Under compelling circumstances a Certificate Case been filed for recovery of the outstanding Bank dues from the borrower and the guarantor and the same is pending before a competent Forum. It is further submitted that complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. He is a debtor and what he has taken as a loan is a public money. Reduction of loan limit in the present case was reduced only due to irregular payment of loan, the account was going to be placed under N.P.A.  And further submitted that relationship between the Bank and the debtor is based on contractual relationship. The complainant agreed at the time of taking loan that if loan amount remains unpaid, bank is entitled to adjust the proceeds of security and thereafter if balance still remains, then to recover the same by taking legal actions. It is certainly not the subject matter of Consumer Protection Act. It is further submitted that there is no valid cause of action and the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation for alleged false claim since the allegations leveled in Para 3 to 8 of the complainant petition are false and imaginary. There is no deficiency on the part of the O.P. The allegations made in Para 9 to 14 has been made for the purpose of making out a case. But the complainant failed to deposit the remaining bank dues which is a public money and the Bank has rightly initiated recovery proceedings under P.D.R Act and prayed to dismissed the case of the complainant with heavy cost.                    
7. The main point for the determination in this case that whether the complainant is entitled for the relief or reliefs as claimed !
8.                                                Findings

The petitioner in support of his case filed documentary and oral evidence both. He has also filed affidavit of 2 persons as CW1 – Sanjeev Kumar and CW2 – Anil Kumar Shah and also filed the following documents in support of the case :-

Exhibit 1 – is the letter of arrangement dt. 02.05.14 which is also written as an agreement regarding sanction of credit facilities.

Exhibit 2 – is the photocopy of letter of complainant Sunil Kumar Shah regarding reducing the limit from Rs 10,00,000 to Rs 5,00,000.

Exhibit 3 – is the letter of SBI dt. 26.10.15 to Sunil Kumar Shah.

Exhibit 4 – is the statement of account issued by SBI Dumka of A/c No. 11281418232 dt. 17.04.14 from 01.04.14 to 17.04.14.

Exhibit 5 – is the statement issued by SBI dt. 09.05.14 which is from 01.04.14 to 09.05.14.

Exhibit 6 – is the letter of SBI Dumka dt. 09.06.14 to M/S Savitri Enterprises.

Exhibit 7 – is the letter of SBI to Sunil Kumar Shah dt. 29.08.14.

Exhibit 8 – is the notice of hearing for appeal/ complaint dt. 23.12.16 issued by Central Information ComM/Sion.

Exhibit 9 – is also hearing notice issued by Central Information ComM/Sion dt. 23.12.15.

Exhibit 10 – is the statement of a/c hand written filed by complainant.

Exhibit 11 – is also statement of a/c of M/S Savitri Enterprises filed by complainant.

Exhibit 12 – is the statement of A/c issued by SBI from 01.03.14 to 17.04.14

Exhibit 13 – is the statement of A/c of Savitri Enterprises from 01.04.12 to 31.03.13.

Exhibit 14 – is also statement of A/c submitted by M/S Savirti Enterprises, Dumka from 05.03.14 to 16.03.14.

Exhibit 15 – is the statement of A/c issued by SBI, Dumka of Savitri Enterprises from 01.04.14 to 07.10.14.

And apart from that the complainant has not produced any oral or documentary evidences in support of the case.

9. The O.P in support of his case has filed documentary evidence as O.P witness No. 1 Ashwini Kumar Sinha, O.P No. 2 Md. Firoz and O.P witness No. 3 Mukesh Kumar. And also filed some documents which are as follows :-

Annexure A – is the letter of SBI, Dumka dt. 04.08.14 regarding stock verification of C.C. Account No. 11281418232.

Annexure B – is the notice issued by SBI to M/S Savitri Enterprises dt. 24.01.15.

Annexure C – is the notice issued by SBI dt. 24.01.15 to Shree Varun Kumar.

Annexure D – is the letter of SBI, Dumka to M/S Savitri Enterprises dt. 23.02.15.

Annexure E – is the letter of SBI, Dumka to M/S Savitri Enterprises dt. 25.04.15

Annexure F – is the letter of arrangements dt. 02.05.14 which is also marked as Exhibit 1.

Annexure G – is the statement of Account of M/S Savitri Enterprises of C.C. a/c from 01.01.13 to 01.06.15.

Apart from that the O.P has not filed any other oral or documentary evidence in support of his case.

10.  Heard the Learned Counsel on behalf of both the parties and also perused the case records documents oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties and after carefully scrutinizing the whole case, the main allegation of the complainant against the O.P that the complainant petitioner deposited Rs 25,000 cash on 29.04.14 but the Field Officer withdrawal the money from 2 fixed deposit and also withdrawal Rs 72,562 from the cash credit account and reduced the limit to Rs 5,00,000, but the entry of Rs 15572 and Rs 72662 has not been entered in the account of the petitioner but later on in Para 10 the petitioner again stated that without the knowledge and information of this petitioner adjusted Rs 15572 and Rs 72562 from C.C account of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has a C.C. a/c No. 22281418232 in the SBI, Main Branch, Dumka, the limit of Rs 10,00,000 in the name of M/S Savitri Enterprises.         
11. And thereafter the petitioner applied for reducing the limit from Rs 10,00,000 to Rs 5,00,000 on which the O.P allowed an application and on 14.03.2014 withdraw Rs 234428 from the security amount of the petitioner no. 30530892505 and 30591052393 respectively of the guarantor, Baldeo Saha ,father and Rs 15572 from C.C. Account of this petitioner and reduce the limit from Rs 10,00,000 to Rs 7,00,000. And thereafter the petitioner also requested to reduce the limit from Rs 7,00,000 to Rs 5,00,000 which was later on reduced and the petitioner again alleged against O.P that the O.P has closed his C.C a/c and due to that he could not withdraw the required amount from his account and it is deficiency and negligency on the part of the petitioner O.P.
12. So far as no entry of Rs 15572 and Rs 72662 is concerned admittedly it is adjusted in the a/c of the complainant. But it is also alleged by the complainant that the O.P deposited from security money which was in the form of Kisan Vikas Patra No. 10086 10087 10088 10089 and 10090. Its maturity date was 20.04.14 but by his S.T.D.R No. 33272198358 dt. 06.09.13 deposited Rs 10,000 only. As such, this interest of 4 months could not be deposited in the account of the petitioner. It is on the part of the O.P and the statement given to the petitioner regarding the deposited money dt. 29.08.14 that deposited money was   Rs 262300 and withdrawal of Rs 194480 + Rs 7269 + Rs 50 that is Rs 201799 as such Rs 6050 is laying in his account but further he has informed that on 10.05.14 there is  Rs 16593 is laying in the account of the petitioner as such there are  contradiction of his information.
13. So far as negligency on the part of O.P is concerned the O.P has filed some documents that are notices by the Bank to the informant which is Annexure – B, C, D and E and from the perusal of this documents it appears that a/c of the petitioner was declared N.P.A a/c by the Bank. From the perusal of Annexure – D which is dt. 23.05.15 written to M/S Savitri Enterprises the Bank has clearly mentioned that from C.C. a/c since 13.10.14 as such year a/c has been declared N.P.A and also asked him to deposit Rs 560792 till 22.02.15 otherwise the Bank grant will be adjusted against year a/c and for remaining amount legal action shall be taken. From the perusal of Annexure – A which is dt. 04.08.14 written to M/S Savitri Enterprises of year office on 04.08.14 following deficiency were observed –

Physical Stock did not matched with the stock statement dt. 02.07.14 submitted by you and other deficiency was found in the stock registers.

14. It is further stated that cash credit facilities of Rs 5,00,000 against the hypothecation of stock in this scheme drawing appeared of the a/c varies with the value of stock. Annexure B is also the notice dt. 24.01.15 which was sent by the Bank to M/S Savitri Enterprises regarding the outstanding liabilities due in which shows that cash credit outstanding interest on 02.01.15 was Rs 513303 which was beyond the cash limit. Annexure – E is also notice dt. 25.04.15 by the SBI to the M/S Savitri Enterprises in which the Bank has written to the complainant that he has failed and neglected to repay the same despite receiving demand letters of Bank. The bank was entitled to appropriate the proceeds of security deposit and rightly appropriate but not as alleged by the complainant. After adjustment of proceeds, sum of Rs 250425.23 + interest is outstanding bank dues against the complainant, which he neglected to pay and at last lodged this complaint only with a malafide intention to grab the public money.
15. Annexure F and Exhibit 1 is letter of arrangement dt. 02.05.16 admittedly the petitioner /complainant is the cash credit a/c holder of SBI in the name of M/S Savitri Enterprises. From going through Exhibit 1 and Annexure F which is same documents apparently the petitioner is the borrower and he has applied to the Bank for the sanction of the credit facilities and limit is Rs 5,00,000. Apparently the limit was reduced by the O.P Bank from Rs 10,00,000 to Rs 5,00,000 on 02.05.14. And from carefully going through Exhibit 4, 5, 12, 13 and 14 and also Annexure G the statement of a/c issued by SBI, these account are of different dates and this statement of account is also not denied by either parties.       It is within the knowledge of the complainant that he has not made transaction to the Bank since 13.10.14 and after 13.10.14 the Bank has given several notices to the complainant to deposit balance amount to the Bank.                                    
16. Apart from that the Bank has after declaring the C.C. a/c of the petitioner as N.P.A he also filed the case for recovery of the Bank money in the competent Court. And also filed the certificate case for the recovery of Bank money. It is further submitted on behalf of O.P that relationship between Bank and complainant is creditor and debtor which is based on contract and the borrower is obliged to repay the Bank dues. As it appears from Exhibit 1 and Annexure F but the complainant adopted ways contrary to the loan agreement and failed to regularize the loan a/c. By filing a petition before Hon’ble Consumer Forum it intends to avoid its liability to pay. It is further agreed that the liability of the complainant and repayment of public money cannot be exonerated by filing a false complaint before the Learned Forum. In fact it is not a matter for adjudication under provisions of Consumer Protection Act and therefore the complainant is fit to be dismissed with heavy cost.
17. Apart from that from perusal of complaint of the complainant there has been discussed by the complainant that what matched loss or damaged were caused to the complainant. He simply prays to order the O.P to continue the C.C a/c of the petitioner. And Exhibit 1 and Annexure F clearly shows that this a/c made fully on the agreement with certain terms and conditions which was not fulfilled by the complainant was that C.C a/c was closed by the O.P rightly.
18. From the aforesaid discussion, I find that there is no any deficiency or negligency in the services on the part of O.Ps rather the O.P has declared the account of the complainant as N.P.A and filed the recovery case in a competent Court for the recovery of Bank money which was due against the complainant petitioner. As such it is therefore,

                                         Ordered

That this case is hereby dismissed on contest without cost and the parties will bear the cost of their own side.

                 Thus, this case is disposed off accordingly.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.