HON’BLE JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, PRESIDENT

                  This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 26/06/2014 passed by Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-II in CC/304/2013 where Ld. Forum concerned while disposing of the complaint case allowed the same on contest against the OP no. 1 to 7 with cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) and dismissed the same against the OPs no. 8 & 9 without any cost. The Ld. Forum concerned also held that the OPs no. 1 to 7 jointly and severally liable for adopting unfair trade practice and for deceiving the complainant in such a manner by not following the rules and regulations of the RBI and directed them to close the personal loan Account of the complainant being no. 48615439 on receipt of Rs. 3,20,000/- (Rupees three lakh twenty thousand) from the complainant within one month from the date and directed to issue no objection certificate and to return all the documents which are deposited by or on behalf of the complainant against the loan Account. The complainant was directed to send a cheque of Rs. 3,20,000/- (Rupees three lakh twenty thousand) in the name of the O.P./ Bank and to send the same to the Bank concerned with a copy of the judgment and order impugned for necessary compliance, directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) towards penal damages as a precautionary measure regarding unfair trade practice with default clause.

          Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated 26/06/2014, passed by Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-II in CC/CDF/304/2013, the present appeal has been preferred.

          Shorn of unnecessary details the case of the complainant (respondent) was that the complainant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) had to take a personal loan amounting Rs. 6,02,000/- (Rupees six lakh two thousand) against Account No. 48615439 from the Standard Chartered Bank (the appellant no. 1 herein) under an agreement dated 18/04/2012 with a condition to repay the same in 24 equal installments of Rs. 29,765/- (Rupees twenty nine thousand seven hundred sixty five) w.e.f. 15/05/2012 to 15/04/2014 to be realized from Kotak Mahindra Bank, the proforma OP no. 8 herein. As per agreement the liability of completing the ECS formalities was opened with the Standard Chartered Bank, duly filled ECS Form along with an authorization in favour of an appointed executive of the Standard Chartered Bank namely Mr.  Shantonu Sen was handed over. But it was a matter of surprise to the complainant that the first ECS was not cleared though it was otherwise scheduled for clearance on 15/05/2012 and on enquiry the complainant was informed by the Standard Chartered Bank that the same was returned from Kotak Mahindra Bank due to ‘stop payment by the drawer’. The complainant requested the proforma OP no. 8 (the Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank), sought for clarification by letter dated 23/05/2012 as to why the ECS of Rs. 29,765/- (Rupees twenty nine thousand seven hundred sixty five) was not honoured on 15/05/2012 in favour of the Standard Chartered Bank despite the fact that the complainant had sufficient balance to clear such ECS amount and the proforma no. 8 replied that as they did not have ECS mandate up to date for Rs. 29,765/- (Rupees twenty nine thousand seven hundred sixty five) the said amount was not cleared from the OP no. 8. Subsequently on repeated requests by the complainant for resolving the matter he contacted the Kotak Mahindra Bank by several letters but to no effect. In the mean time the complainant issued a new ECS mandate of Rs. 29,765/- (Rupees twenty nine thousand seven hundred sixty five) in favour of Standard Chartered Bank from 15/08/2012 to 15/04/2014. Despite the complainant’s sincere efforts to regularize the ECS of Standard Chartered Bank as per the scheme of loan, the complainant found that each installment of ECS was paid after 60 days on bringing the same to the notice of the Credit Information Bureau India Ltd. Accordingly the complainant requested the OP/Bank to take appropriate steps but no result yielded. The complainant with the intention to resolve the matter permanently decided to close the said loan account being Account No. 48615439 and requested the Bank Authority to close the same loan account, wrote to the Bank Authority to appoint competent person with whom he may contact for paying the balance amount and to take back all documents provided along with the security cheques given at the time of signing the said loan agreement to which the Bank Authority replied that the above mentioned request dated 20/05/2013 cannot be entertained unless the complainant paid the interest levied and prepayment of loan charges to the said Bank before the closure of the loan account. Notwithstanding the laches on the part of the Bank the complainant, on the contrary, was directed a few terms, which was neither acceptable to him nor he was duty bound to oblige. The complainant never denied to pay the two outstanding EMIs for the months of May and July 2012 to the Bank amounting Rs. 59,530/- (Rupees fifty nine thousand five hundred thirty) i.e. @ Rs. 29,765/- (Rupees twenty nine thousand seven hundred sixty five) per month but the Bank Authority did not extend co-operation to the complainant despite the fact that the complainant requested the Standard Chartered Bank either to resolve the issue and complete the required formalities for smooth and easy payment of the monthly EMIs by the complainant for closure the said loan account by way of appointment of a competent person for completion of the required formalities for the same but the Bank Authority did not respond to such prayer of the complainant. The complainant further stated that the very purpose for arranging the said loan amount of Rs. 6,02,000/- (Rupees six lakh two thousand) was frustrated due to cheer deficiency in service on the part of the OP/Bank and for failure to make arrangement for the same leaving no alternative before the complainant but to take recourse of the Forum concerned claiming reliefs in terms of the prayers as per petition of complaint.

          The OPs no. 1 to 7 being the Standard Chartered Bank and its officials in their joint written version did not admit non-cooperation on their part rather they intended that the complaint case was not maintainable. In their said joint written version the OPs denied and disputed the statements of the complainant with regard to their liability of completing the ECS formalities with Kotak Mahindra Bank rather they contended that the borrower was solely responsible to complete all steps for due adjustment of the loan and for that reason the complainant issued payment instructions from Kotak Mahindra Bank, the OPs no. 8 & 9 herein. The complainant’s/Banker i.e. Kotak Mahindra Bank duly verified the ECS Form which was to take effect from 15/05/2012 and a copy of the said mandate form, duly completed and signed was not submitted to them. Denying errors on their part, the OPs no. 1 to 7/Bank and its authorities contended that the complainant’s loan account in May 2002 for the reason “payment stopped by drawer” and in July 2012 for reason ECS mandate not received from the customer was the main reason for non-payment of EMIs for which the complainant was responsible for default and these OPs no. 1 to 7 time and again requested the complainant for providing the details and further requested him to check up the matter with his banker. Further denying and disputing other material allegations, as contained in the body of the petition of complaint the contesting OPs stated that the complainant’s prayer for pre-closure of the facility would be effected only on payment of the entire outstanding and pre-payment charges applicable to facilitate the closure of the loan account. The contesting OPs further contended that the complainant though well aware of the fact that he was liable to pay the pre-payment charges on pre-closure of the account he filed the instant complaint case before Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-II with some ulterior intention for illegal gain on the strength of an undue bargain and ultimately they prayed for dismissal of the complaint case.

          On the strength of the rival pleadings of the parties in their petition of complaint as well as in the written version, Ld. Trial Forum directed the respondents no. 1 to 7 to give reliefs in terms of the impugned judgment quoted earlier and being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such judgment and order directing the contesting OPs, as referred to earlier, the present appeal has been preferred.

          Now the point for consideration whether Ld. Trial Forum was justified in passing the order dated 26/06/2014 in CC/304/2013.

          Shri Ajay Singhania, the complainant of CC/304/2013 intended to take loan of a sum of Rs. 6,02,000/- (Rupees six lakh two thousand) and he took such personal loan from the contesting OPs/Standard Chartered Bank and there was an instruction that the Kotak Mahindra Bank being the banker of the complainant would make arrangement for getting the loan due in 24 equal installments amounting Rs. 29,765/- (Rupees twenty nine thousand seven hundred sixty five) w.e.f. 15/05/2012 to 15/04/2012 but it is revealed from the materials on record that the Standard Chartered Bank could not realise two installments as it was refused by the Kotak Mahindra Bank due to “stop payment by drawer” and the same was for the months of May and July 2012 @ Rs. 29,765/- (Rupees twenty nine thousand seven hundred sixty five) i.e. Rs. 59,530/- (Rupees fifty nine thousand five hundred thirty). The complainant in his petition of complaint categoricaly averred that he was interested to clear up the dues and prayed for direction upon the Bank Authority (OPs no. 1 to 7) for getting the unpaid amount with interest as per agreed rate to be calculated by the concerned Bank. Since the complainant is praying for such benefit, he is liable to pay the prepayment charges for preclosure of the Account. Hence, we are unable to accept that there was deficiency in service on the part of the contesting OPs/Bank particularly when it is admitted by the complainant that the said Standard Chartered Bank could not realise the entire amount due to non-payment on his part for his direction to his banker, Kotak Mahindra Bank for the direction “stop payment by drawer”. Since this complainant is so eager to clear up the dues of the Bank we dispose of the appeal with a direction to the Bank Authority (OPs no. 1 to 7/appellants herein) to calculate the amount due from the complainant as per agreed terms and conditions after adjustment of amount already paid and give the complainant scope to clear up the dues within three months from the date of the order. The appellants are directed to start process of such settlemet preferably with a week from the date of the order and the entire process shall be completed with 30 days and the complainant shall be given liberty to clear up the dues if any within 60 days thereafter. Since we are not agreeing with the findings of Ld. Trial Forum regarding deficiency of service or unfair trade practice etc., we do not feel it proper to keep it on record. Since the appellants herein being a financial institution dealing with public money cannot be asked to make it a mess. Hence, the appeal stands allowed and the judgment and order dated 26/06/2014 passed by Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata, unit –II in CC/304/2013 are hereby set aside. Parties do bear their respective costs of Appeal.