SRI SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, PRESIDING MEMBER
The instant appeal has been directed against the final order/judgment being no-11 dated 09/09/2016 passed by ld DCDRC, Kolkata unit-1 (North) in connection with CC case no-347/2015 wherein the ld Trial Commission below while disposing of the said complaint case dismissed the same on contest without cost against the opposite parties and being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such order, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant.
The brief fact of the case is that the complainant took a car loan from the opposite parties/bank and the said car loan was sanctioned under Auto Finance Scheme amounting to Rs.1,63,000/- plus interest. The total loan with interest was fixed for Rs.2,02,360/- to be paid in 60 equal monthly instalments. Regarding payment of loan amount 60 account payee cheques (each amounting to Rs.3,372/- only) were issued in favour of the opposite party no-1. After payment of 14 instalments, the opposite party no-1, through the Ops no-2 & 3 on 22/06/2005, informed the complainant that the Auto Finance Scheme was going to be closed and at that place Mileage Scheme was to be introduced. The Ops concerned returned the rest 46 nos. of post dated cheques issued by the complainant and at that time the outstanding loan amount was Rs. 1,55,112/- only. Thereafter the complainant paid the loan amount lastly on 07/07/2008. The OP/bank issued a zero balance statement. Upon perusal of the said statement the complainant asked the OP nos. 2 and 3 to issue no objection certificate but the ops denied to issue the same. The complainant referred the matter Lok Adalat, DLA South Parganas. But the matter was not settled. The complainant further added that he had to pay excess amount of Rs.46,811/- and he suffered financial loss amounting to Rs.89,777/- only. Accordingly, the complainant prayed for compensation and damages clearly enumerated in the petition of the complaint.
The opposite parties 1 to 3 contested this case by filing written version stating inter alia that on the basis of application from the end of the complainant, the Ops/bank sanctioned auto loan on 01/05/2004. Thereafter the said account was converted into Mileage Scheme. The account bearing no-32205224117 was opened on 31/05/2005 for the purpose of overdraft facility amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- only. The said limit might be extended by the ops/bank, if necessary. The adjusted dues amounting to Rs.1,31,760/- had been transferred to the account of Mileage Scheme on 17/07/2005. The zero balance did not indicate that the complainant repaid the entire loan amount. On the basis of said event the complainant prayed for no dues certificate but the said prayer had no basis at all. The complainant failed to pay outstanding dues which have been still lying unpaid. There is no gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of ops/bank. Accordingly they prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint with exemplary cost.
The opposite party 4 also contested this case by filing of written version stating inter alia that the OP 1 by a deed of assignment dated 30/04/2010 sold, transferred and assigned all the right, title and interest and all receivable under the loan account of the complainant in favour of the answering opposite party. The loan account of the complainant was already declared as NPA and bad asset which was assigned in favour of the answering OP. The loan account of the complainant was still alive and in this respect it would be necessary to call upon the complainant to substantiate his claim of closure by putting evidence. Hence the said OP prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint with cost.
In course of hearing ld. counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant drew our attention to the observations of ld Trial Commission below and pointed out that the ld Trial Commission below completely ignored and overlooked the materials on record while passing the impugned order mentioned above. Ld counsel submitted that there was a clear gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops but the ld Trial commission, without applying any judicial mind, dismissed the petition of complaint on contest without cost against the Ops. Accordingly the ld counsel prayed for setting aside the order impugned dated 09/09/2016 passed by the concerned DCDRC.
In course of hearing ld counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 argued that the complainant caused wrong interpretation regarding zero balance statement. Actually the Ops/bank on several occasions requested and warned the complainant to make payment of all outstanding dues but he did not bother regarding the aforesaid event. There is no such wrong, error or mistake in passing the impugned order dated 09/09/2016 and accordingly the ld counsel for respondents 1 to 3 prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal with exemplary cost.
In course of hearing ld counsel appearing for the respondent no 4 pointed out paragraph no-13 of the petition of the complaint wherefrom it was admitted that opposite party no-4 through their ld counsel sent a demand notice dated 08/03/2011 to the complainant herein with a demand of Rs.37,491.71. The complainant through his ld counsel replied to the said notice but the same was rejected. Thereafter an application before the office of the DLS, South 24th Parganas was filed for resolving the matter in Lok Adalat vide PL matter being no-160/2012 on 28/07/2012. But the dispute between the parties was not settled. Ld. counsel also argued that due to default made by the appellant, respondent no-1/bank by a deed of assignment dated 30/04/2010 sold, transferred and assigned all right, title and interest under the loan account of the appellant in favour of the respondent company. The loan account of the appellant was declared as NPA and bad asset. The account of the complainant/appellant was still alive and there was outstanding due in the said account. Accordingly, the ld. counsel prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal with costs.
We have heard the ld. counsels for both sides at length and in full.
We have also perused all materials on record meticulously.
We have considered the submissions of the ld counsels.
It is admitted that the complainant took a car loan under the scheme of auto finance and from the four corners of the record it is clear to us that the complainant paid few instalments. It is also admitted fact that the auto finance scheme was closed and at that place a new scheme viz. Mileage scheme was introduced. Under the new scheme the complainant could repay the loan amount without any stipulated amount of instalments and he could have withdrawn the amount from the said account.
We have carefully perused the statement of current account dated 07/05/2008 and through this statement the ops/Standard Chartered bank used to warn the complainant by endorsing a remark YOUR ACCOUNT IS CURRENTLY OVERDUE.
Further we have carefully perused the statement of current account dated 07/06/2008 wherefrom it reveals that the ops/Standard Charted bank further used to warn the complainant by endorsing a remark YOUR ACCOUNT IS CURRENTLY OVERDUE and direction was given to the complainant PLEASE SETTLE THE MINIMUM REPYMENT OF INR 8,465.00 IMMEDIATELY. The said statement, at that time, clearly indicated that there was an outstanding dues amounting to Rs.26,901.47 from the end of the complainant.
After repeated requests from the end of ops/bank, the complainant failed to pay the outstanding dues in respect of payment of loan and to that effect the ops/bank had to transfer the outstanding amount of Rs.27,416.94 in delinquent category and as a result the account of the complainant clearly showed a zero balance. By taking the advantage of zero balance statement, the complainant wrongly interpreted the actual meaning of the said statement and illegally demanded NOC from the ops/bank.
In the financial terms, an individual, firm or any other institution is said to be delinquent when they are unable to pay their debts within the agreed time/stipulated period of time. This particular word ‘delinquent’ refers a situation wherein the borrower is overdue on a payment related to taxes, bonds, mortgage, loan etc.
Under the above facts and circumstances, it is very clear to us that there was a clear outstanding due from the end of the complainant and to that effect the op/bank had rightly refused to deliver the NOC in favour of the complainant.
The respondent no-4 rightly decided that at the time of assignment to the respondent no-4, the account of the complainant was still alive and there was outstanding due in the said account of the complainant.
After careful scrutiny of all papers and documents and regard being had to the submissions of the ld counsels we hold and firmly hold that there is no gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the ops as the complainant failed to substantiate his claim stated in his petition of complaint.
Keeping in view of the above observations, there is no hesitation to hold that there is no such error, mistake or any illegality in passing the order impugned dated 09/09/2016 passed by the Ld. concerned Trial Commission.
Accordingly the instant appeal stands dismissed on contest against the all ops without any order as to costs and subsequently we affirm the order dated 09/09/2016 passed by the ld Trial Commission.
Hence the instant appeal stands disposed of.
Note accordingly.
Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the ld Trial commission for compliance and for necessary action.
