DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 33 of 2019

 

Shri Pradip Kumar Shil,

S/O. Lt. Birendra Ch. Shil,

Tripura Gents Beauty Parlour,

Of Math Chowmuhani, A.A. Road,

Near Bank of Baroda,

Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001.…...........................................................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. The Branch Manager,

Union Bank of India,

Agartala Branch, Hariganga Basak Road,

P.O.Agartala, West Tripura,

Pin-799001.

 

2.Sri Kaushik Bardhan Roy,  Bank Staff.

 

3. Sri Dhiraj Dhar, Clerk.

 

4. Smt. Papiya Sen, Assistant Manager,

 

5. Sri Ashok Acharjee, Recovery Agent,

All are employee of Union Bank of India,

Agartala Branch, Hariganga Basak Roaad,

P.O.-Agartala, Dist.-West Tripura

Pin-799001.................................................................................................. Opposite parties.

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SRI UMESH DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. Dr BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Swarup Pandit,

  Sri Nabajit Kr. Biswas,

  Sri Malay Debnath,

  Advocates.

 

For the O.Ps.  : Sri Prabir Saha,

  Advocate.  

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  13/12/2019

 

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Shri Pradip Kumar Shil, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency of service by the O.Ps.

Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant is a barber by profession. He has one salon at Mathchowmuhani, Agartala under the name & style of Tripura Gents Beauty Parlor. In order to run his business smoothly he obtained loan for an amount of Rs.45,000/- vide Account No.361606150580031 under Professional & Self Employment Scheme from the O.P. Union Bank of India, Agartala Branch. The loan was sanction on 24/08/2013. After sanctioning of the loan amount he paid back some amount against the loan. But thereafter as his wife became seriously ill and as he was busy with treatment of his wife he was unable to repay rest loan amount. As a result he became defaulter. With a view to settlement of the loan amount he on 24/12/2018 filed an application before the Branch Manager.  By the application he proposed to get settlement of the arrear loan amount on payment of Rs.7,800/-. The said amount was deposited by him on 29/08/2018, 11/09/2018, 25/09/2018, 24/12/2018 & 27/12/2018 @Rs.100/-, 1,000/-, 900/-, 4,200/- & 1,600/- respectively. The Complainant has alleged in his complaint that though he was given assurance by the O.P. No.1 that by payment of the aforesaid amount the loan amount shall be treated as closed but the O.P. did not provide him loan clearance certificate even though he had visited several times to the Branch for the certificate.  

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the O.P.Bank,  the Complainant has filed the instant complaint before this Forum claiming Rs.1,50,000/-  as compensation. 

Hence this case.

 

2. In due course of time notices were duly sent to the O.Ps. from the Forum. The O.P. Nos.1,2,3&4 have appeared and filed W.Os. jointly. Notice issued to the O.P. No.5 has been returned without service with report that the O.P. No.5 is not the employee of the O.P., Union Bank of India. The Complainant was directed to take steps for procuring the attendance of the O.P. No.5 vide order of this Forum dated 19/06/2019. The Complainant has however on the subsequent date i.e. on 18/07/2019 submitted before the Forum that he would not press for presence of the O.P. No.5. Hence, no further notice was sent to the O.P. N.O.-5 from the Forum.              

  The O.P. Nos.1,2,3&4 in their W.O. have admitted that the Complainant has been sanctioned loan on 24/08/2013 to the tune of Rs.45,000/- as per his prayer under the professional and self employment scheme from the O.P. Union Bank of India, Agartala Branch. The loan was sanctioned in favour of the Complainant for running his Salon  situated at Mathchowmuhani with a condition that he shall repay the amount by monthly installments @Rs.1,350/- per month. The Complainant paid 4/5 installments and thereafter became defaulter and that as a result the loan account has sleeped into NPA on 31/03/2015. Even after issuing several notices and reminders he did not liquidate the whole dues of the Bank. The O.Ps. have asserted in the W.O. that the Complainant paid in total Rs.8,025/-against the loan amount. As the Complainant has utterly failed to repay the loan amount,  the O.P., Bank having found no other alternative filed a case vide No.27/PDR/Union Bank/2016 on 30/12/2015 under Public Demand Recovery Act before the Public Demand Recovery Officer, Agartala, West Tripura after observing all formalities for recovery of total loan dues amounting to Rs.38,261.48/- including interest. Notices were duly sent from PDRO in connection with that case to the Complainant and also to the O.P., Bank. The Complainant did not appear before the Public Demand Recovery Officer. Even the Complainant did not turn up before the Lok Adalats where the PDR case was referred several times for settlement. 

      The O.Ps. in their W.O. has admitted that the Complainant visited the O.Ps' Branch on 24/12/2018 after several persuasion of the O.Ps. and by submitting a letter he prayed for liquidating the whole outstanding loan amount by stating “that today he will pay Rs.4,200/- and on 25/12/2018 he will pay another amount of Rs.5,800/-”. According to the O.Ps. the Complainant has failed to comply with his commitment and that instead of depositing Rs.5,800/-, he had deposited Rs.1,600/- on 27/12/2018. The O.Ps. further asserted in the W.O. that as per the PDR case which has been filed prior to the filing of the instant complaint by the Complainant, he was required to pay an amount of Rs.39,078/- being the outstanding loan amount with interest. So the Complainant, according to the O.Ps. can not expect that simply by making deposit of the small amount by him he can not be exempted from the liability of the outstanding amount of the loan. Hence question of issuing Loan Clearance Certificate as asked for the Complainant does not arise. 

  Denying any deficiency of service on their part towards the Complainant, the O.P. Nos.1,2,3&4 have prayed for rejecting the complaint.  

EVIDENCE ADDUCE BY THE PARTIES:-

3. The Complainant examined himself as PW-I and submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit. He has produced 06 documents. The documents on identification have been marked as Exhibit – 1 Series. The complainant was cross examined by the O.P. side.

  On behalf of the O.P. Nos.1,2,3&4 one witness namely Sri Lalta Prasad, the Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Agartala Branch was examined. The said witness was also cross examined by the Complainant side. On behalf of the O.Ps. 11 documents were filed but only 09 documents have been marked  as Exhibit A Series. 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

  (i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps towards the Complainant?

  (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/  relief as prayed for?

            

5. DECISION   AND  REASONS  FOR  DECISIONS:- 

      We have heard arguments from both sides. 

We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties, the evidence, both documentary and oral adduced by both sides. 

It is evident from the case record that the Complainant obtained loan for an amount Rs.45,000/- from the O.P. Bank on 24/08/2013 under the Professional & Self Employment Scheme for running his Parlor business situated at Mathchowmuhani, Agartala. The loan was disbursed to him in due course of time and that as per the scheme he had to pay each and every month installment for an amount Rs.1,350/- to the Bank. We find that he was very irregular in repaying the loan amount to the O.P. Bank. Ultimately the loan account has sleeped into NPA on 31/03/2015. Thereafter the O.P. Bank on several times called upon the Complainant to settle the matter but he did not pay any hid to the offer of the O.P. Bank. Finding no other alternative the O.P. Bank instituted a case vide No.27/PDR/Union Bank/2016 on 30/12/2015 under Public Demand Recovery Act before the Public Demand Recovery Officer, Agartala, West Tripura after observing all formalities for recovery of total loan dues amounting to Rs.38,261.48/- including interest. Notice was duly sent to the Complainant from the PDRO, Agartala, West Tripura. But the Complainant did not appear before the PDRO, Agartala. Even the complainant did not turn up before the Lok Adalats when his PDR case was referred for settlement. We further find that the Complainant by suppressing the PDR case which was filed against him by the O.P. Bank has filed the instant  consumer complaint before the Forum. He has taken a plea in his complaint that on 24/08/2018 he visited the Branch of the O.P. Bank and by filing an application proposed to get settlement of his arrear loan amount on payment of Rs.7,800/- and that the Bank Authority had assured him to issue Loan Clearance Certificate if the said amount was paid by him. According to the Complainant he was not favoured with the loan clearance certificate though he had deposited the amount of Rs.7,800/- with the Bank.  The Complainant however has failed to produce evidence to substantiate this plea of assurance having been made by the O.P. Bank to him. Moreover, on perusal of the copy of the application dated 24/08/2018 which he has filed with his complaint we do not find any endorsement/ assurance having been reflected on it that the outstanding loan amount of the Complainant would stand liquidated on payment of Rs.7,800/- from the side of the O.P. Bank. Such a plea taken by the Complainant according to us is quit absurd in view of his loan account had already been turned into NPA. Moreover, the O.P. Bank had already filed a case under Public Demand Recovery Act against the Complainant for recovery  of the outstanding loan amount prior to the filing of the Consumer complaint by the Complainant.  

6. In view of the discussion made above, we find and hold that the Complainant has failed to make out a case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The O.P. Bank according to us can not be held liable for any sort of deficiency of service towards the Complainant. 

In the result, the Complaint filed by the Complainant Sri Pradip Kumar Shil is dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we are not inclined to give any costs.  

 

 

    Announced.

 

SRI  BAMDEB  MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

SRI  UMESH  DAS

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

 WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. SMT. DR  BINDU  PAL

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA