This appeal is directed against the final order dated 9/12/2014 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Cooch Behar in DF/24/2014. The fact of the case is that the respondent of this appeal Md. Amjad Ali Mondal was the employee of Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank who has retired from his service on superannuation on 31/08/2013 from the Branch of appellant Bank. During the service period, he applied for house building loan from the appellant Bank while he was posted at Balurghat Branch. Branch Manager of the said Bank has sanctioned his loan to the tune of Rs. 56,000/- and at the time of securing such house building loan he had to deposit the deed of land along with rent receipts and other documents and he has repaid the entire loan amount fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the loan and finally the loan account was settled in full satisfaction. The respondent requested the Bank Authority to return back the documents which he has furnished at the time of sanctioning the loan but the Bank Authority has failed to return back the said documents for which he repeatedly demanded for getting return back all the same but ultimately he was refused to get back the said documents from the Bank. For that reason, he has ultimately registered a consumer complaint against the Bank under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for directing the appellant Bank to pay him Rs. 2,00,000/- for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony and Rs.30,000/- as litigation cost. The case was registered against the Chairman, General manager and Branch Manager of Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank. The Ld. Forum at the time of scrutiny of registration of the case strucked out the name of General Manager of the Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank from the cause title of the case and issued notice upon the Chairman and Branch Manager of the Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank treating them as OP no. 1 and 2 in the original consumer complaint. The OP no. 1 and 2 appeared before the Ld. Forum but they did not contest the case by filing W.V. Accordingly, the case was heard ex parte against OP no. 1 and 2. The said OP no. 1 and 2 that is the chairman and the Branch Manager of Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank has registered the appeal against the order of Ld. Forum delivered on 09/12/0214. The ground of appeal reflected in the memo of appeal to the extent that respondent Md. Amjad Ali actually was not the consumer as because he took the loan as an employee of the appellant Bank by enjoying some special facilities and interest rebate. The further case of the Bank is that though he has already repaid his entire loan amount in this particular case. Yet due to misconduct for his wrongful gain which caused detriment to the interest of the appellant Bank during his tenure a disciplinary action was taken against him and he has disbursed cash payment and transferred the loan amount from some borrowers which caused huge monitory loss to the Bank and for that reason, the Bank has taken appropriate steps against him and considering all such facts, he has filed the instant consumer complaint and for that reason, the order passed by the Ld. Forum was not covering the justice of the case and the Bank was not provided sufficient opportunity to contest the consumer complaint by filing the W.V and for that reason, the order of Ld. Forum should be set aside. The appeal was admitted on its own merit. And the respondent Md. Amjad Ali has contested the appeal personally.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

            During the course of hearing argument, Ld. Advocate of the appellant submits that the respondent has misused his official position during the tenure of service and for his misconduct and dealing with the loan cases, he has caused huge losses to the Bank exchequer and for that reason, disciplinary action could be taken against him on the part of the Bank Authority and for that reason, he has registered this consumer complaint only to take revenge against the action of the Bank towards him. He further submits that criminal proceedings has already initiated against the respondent and in order to prove his misconduct the documents which he furnished at the time of granting his loan has been kept in the custody of the Bank to show the same before the Criminal Court where the criminal proceedings is pending against him and for that reason, the Bank could not hand over the documents of the complainant in due time. He further mentions that the Bank has entrusted the Ld. Advocate to conduct the case before the Ld. Forum somehow due to some miscommunication between the Bank Authority and the Ld. Advocate appointed by the Bank the Bank Authority could not get the opportunity to contest the consumer complaint and for that reason, the ex parte order was passed against the Bank and right now, the Bank intends to contest the case and for that reason, the appeal should be allowed. So that the Bank Authority may get an opportunity of being heard before the Ld. Forum and such ex parte order should be set aside. The respondent Md. Amjad Ali countered this argument by his submission before the Commission that no criminal case is pending against him and he has already paid the loan amount and Bank has already settled the loan amount after full satisfaction and Bank have no authority to keep the documents of the complainant which utterly goes against the norms of a Bank and this attitude of the Bank clearly indicates that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Bank. He further argued that he has obtained the loan not as an employee but as a general customer of the Bank and he has paid the repaid loan amount within stipulated period by paying interest also. He was not provided any special privilege in that loan transaction. So, the Ld. Forum has rightly passed the impugned order.

After hearing both sides and after going through the merit of the case the Commission finds that the Bank has intentionally kept the documents of the complainant which was furnished by him at the time of sanctioning the loan. The original land deed which was obtained from the complainant by the Bank before sectioning the loan only with the purpose of hypothecation of the building as collateral security of the said sanctioned loan. And while the loan has already settled after full satisfaction, Bank has no authority to keep the said documents any more while the Bank was requested by the loanee to return bank the said documents in repeated occasions. So, if the Bank could get the opportunity to contest the case then the chance of fate of the case for any change was very little one as because the conduct of the Bank apparently reflects the Bank has intentionally kept the said documents in their custody. If the said documents were furnished before any competent court to prove the criminal liability of the accused then there would have some excuses on the part of the Bank. But here in this case the Bank could not satisfy the Commission that the Bank was compelled to furnish the said documents before any competent court of law. Therefore, if we go into the merit of the case, we find that the order of Ld. Forum is very justified one. No apparent error or defect is reflected in the observations of the Ld. Forum in deciding the instant consumer dispute. However, for the ends of justice the order of Ld. Forum should be effected from the date of final order of this Commission so that the appellant Bank would not have to bear additional burden to comply the order of the Ld. Forum.

            Thus, the appeal appears to be devoid of any merit.

Hence it is,

ORDERED

            That the instant appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost. The order of Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Cooch Behar dated 09/12/2014 in DF/24/2014 is hereby confirmed subject to enforcement of the order of Ld. Forum comes into effect from the date of receiving the copy of the order of this commission on the part of the appellant and respondent. And the appellant Bank shall have to comply the order of Ld. Forum within 45 days from the date of receiving the copy of order of this Commission, failing which the order of Ld. Forum shall take into effect since 09/12/2014.

            Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the same be communicated to the Ld. Concerned Forum through e-mail.