This case has been filed by the complainant Mausumi Dey (Das), on Under Section 12 of the C.P Act. 1986 against the Branch Manager, SBI, Bolpur.
The facts of the case to put in a nut shell are as below:-
That the complainant has a savings account being SB AC-38631422968 in which Rs. 8,20,000/- has been set hold by the Bank. That the balance of that account was Rs. 5,44,288/-. That OP bank did not encash to cheques of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 3,30,000/- vide cheque No’s 344400 dated 18/11/2019 and 344399 dated 18/11/2019 issued by the complainant and those two cheques have been dishonored by the OP Bank due to insufficient fund inspite of having sufficient fund on that day in the said saving account.
That the complainant’s husband has a car loan under the OP Bank and they in order to recover the loan amount sold the car in under value i.e. Rs. 5,30,000/- and they deducted the further amount of Rs. 3,21,217/- as on 24/03/2020 i.e. during the lockdown period from the personal savings account of the complainant.
That the OP Bank deducted the aforesaid amount from the complainant’s account.
The complainant has prayed for a direction to bank be permitted to operate her savings account and the directed to credit Rs. 321217/- which has been deducted from the savings account of the complainant not to obstruct of the complainant to operate her savings account.
The OP Bank did not contest the case in spite of receipt of the notice on 15/01/2020 (Vide track consignment on record).Hence the case went exparte.
Upon pleading of the parties the following points are to be considered for discussion of the case.
Point for determination/Issues.
- Whether the complaint is a Consumer or not?
- Whether this Forum/Commission has jurisdiction to try this Case?
- Whether there in any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP?
- Whether the complaint is entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point No. 1:- Evidently the complainant has an Savings Account being SB Account No.- 38631422968.
So, the complainant is a Consumer U/S 2(1) (d) of the C.P Act 1986 and the OP bank is the service provider.
Point No. 2:- Total valuation of the case is rupees less than Rs. 5,00000/- which is far below the maximum limit of this jurisdiction i.e. 20,00000/-.
Therefore, this Forum has pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain and try this case.
Point No. 3 and 4:-
Now the question arises whether the OP is deficient or not:-
From the evidence and other documents of the complainant it is seen that the husband of the complainant, since deceased, has took an auto loan being loan account No. 37896823408 limit of Rs. 8,20,000/- in under the purchase the vehicle being No. WB 48 C4737 from the Op. But after the death of her husband the complainant being a widow Mousumi Day (Das) has an SB Account being No. 38631422968 under the OP Bank and OP is the service provider under the complainant.
That said Sougata Das died on 15/09/2019 to effect of antimortem hanging in nature. The said car was covered insurance i.e. SBI RINN RAKSHA new auto loan scheme being policy No. 70000018311. That as per the terms and policy in case of death of the insured some assured will be paid to the nominee.
Accordingly the complainant gave the death intimation of the insured Borrower to the insurance co. as well OP Bank that the insurance Co. reputed the claim of the complainant.
Thereafter the OP Bank sent a letter being No. RACC BOPUR 2019-20 dated 17/06/2019 addressing the complainant and they requested her to liquidate the loan within 7 days.
That there after the OP Bank sent a letter being No. RACC BOLPUR 2019/20/14 dated 26/07/2019 addressing to the complainant to deliver the possession of the vehicle together with all switch keys and other accessories, registration certificate, Insurance policy or polices to enable the Bank to sell or dispose of the sane in any manner they think fit for the purpose of realization of the due in the loan account and the charges towards repossession and garage parking charges, if any until the date of sale and realization of the vehicle shall be changed and recovered from your loan account.
That the complainant operate the said account herself. And as such in order to withdraw Rs. 5,30,000/- she issued two cheques being No. 344399 dated 18/11/2019 amount to Rs. 3,30,000/- and 344400 dated 18/11/2019 amount to Rs. 2,00,000/- and represented those two cheques before his banker UBI, Bolpur Branch for encashment but those two cheques have been returned dishonor with a reason ‘fund insufficient’. That be it mentioned here that on that date balance of the bank account of the complainant was Rs. 5,44,288/-
That thereafter the complainant had been to the OP Bank and submitted her written representation before the OP Bank. She also wanted to know from the bank authority why her two cheques being No. 344399 and 344400 have been returned dishonor inspite of she has sufficient fund in his saving account. That the authority replied that Rs. 8,20,000/- has been ‘set hold’ by the bank authority to recover the loan amount which was taken by her husband as Auto Loan being loan account No. 37896823408.
Now we are of the view that as the husband of the complainant took the aforesaid loan from the OP Bank and after his death the complainant being the wife she is liable to pay the debt and we find no deficiency on the part of the bank for recovery of the loan from the complainant.
Therefore the complainant is not entitle to get any relief as prayed for. However after adjustment of the loan in full bank may be permit the complainant to operate the bank account of the complainant.
Hence, it is,
O R D E R E D,
that the instant C.F Case No. CC/113/2019 be and same is dismissed exparte against the opposite party. No Cost.
Let a copy of this final order be given/handed over to the Petitioner and to all the Op separately by post free of cost at once.
The instant case is thus disposed of.
Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each at free of cost.
