Final Order/Judgment

Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER

Brief facts of the case:- The Complainant, a retired Group-D staff of Mahesh Banga Vidyalaya, while in service, availed of a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from Paschim Banga Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as OP Bank) against mortgage of the original title deed of his residential place along with corresponding tax receipt, Parcha, Building Plan and Panchayat certificate with the OP Bank and the Complainant was supposed to pay off the loan by equated monthly installments. However the Complainant himself admits in his petition that he was declared as a defaulter by the OP bank as, because of some financial constraints he failed to pay the EMIs as per schedule.

The OP Bank as a result of the Complainant’s being defaulter, communicated the same to different departments including the school where the Complainant was an employee.

Reportedly, the ‘Administrative Committee’ of the said school convened a meeting on this issue wherein the Complainant andthe OP Bank were called up and it was settled in the meeting in presence of ‘other dignitaries’ that the Complainant would repay the balance amount, as on date, amounting to Rs.2,80,000/-only from his Provident Fund accumulation. The concerned Bank official present in the meeting is claimed to have endorsed that proposal.

Accordingly a written resolution was made on that day and the same was signed by all the members of the School Committee the Complainant and the concerned Bank Official. The resolution is reported to have been passed on 13.04.17.

The Complainant, consequent upon the said resolution claims to have paid off the balance amount of Rs.2,80,000/- from his provident account as an one-time payment and as the full and final settlement.

In turn, the Complainant expected the OP Bank to return him the documents retained by them against the mortgage.

However, in spite of repeated persuasions the OP Bank declined to turn back the documents and allegedly claimed further amounts.

At this, the Complainant claims to have paid a further amount of Rs.17,500/- but in spite of the payment, several subsequent requests and service of a legal notice, the OP Bank refused to hand over the documents to the Complainant.The complainant has annexed photocopies of the purported resolution, first page and certain other pages of the Bank pass book covering certain transactions, lawyer’s notice and the reply received from the Law Officer of the Bank and evidence of service of notices only.

Considering the attitude of the OP Bank as deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the complainant approached to this Commission with a prayer to impose direction upon the opposite parties to turn back the documents retained by the Bank against mortgage, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for harassmentand Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost.

In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records it transpires that the complainant is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(i)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 are concerned.

 The complainant is a resident within the district of Hooghly. The office address of the OP Bank is also within the district of Hooghly.The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.20,00,000/-Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.

Decision with reasons:-At the very outset it will be worth mentioning that  the sole opposite party did not appear before this Commission even in a single occasion in spite of proper service of notice.Resultantly, the case ran ex parte against the opposite party Bank.

Materials on records are perused.

So far as the purported Resolution taken in the meeting of the Administrative Committee of the school is concerned, the Complainant has filed a photo-copy of the resolution. It transpires from the relevant records that in order no.14 dtd.08.08.22 the Complainant was asked to produce the original Resolution book on the next date fixed for hearing i.e. 12.09.22. However, the Complainant side avoiding the physical presence, prayed for time by filing a petition only on that day. The fact remains that in spite of allowance of substantial time the Complainant eventually failed to produce the original resolution book.

So the authenticity of the photo-copy of the so called resolution remains questionable.

Apart from the above, the question which automatically arises that whether the Administrative Committee of the school had any locus standi in the matter of settlement of repayment of a loan taken from a Bank.

So far as Banking Regulation Act and other allied Statutes are concerned, there is no such legal provision, on the strength of which the Administrative Committee of a school can intervene into the matter of repayment of a loan taken from a Bank by an employee of that school. Thus, even if there is any such resolution in this regard taken by the Administrative Committee of the school, the sanctity of such resolution is grossly questionable.

Besides, the Complainant has not submitted the key documents and information like the loan agreement, repayment schedule, the span of time for which he remained defaulter, on what basis a further payment of Rs.17,500/- was made by him etc.

Moreover, the law officer of the Bank in reply to the legal notice sent by the Complainant states in unequivocal terms that at no point of time Senior Manager of the Bank accepted the one-time settlement proposal for Rs.2,80,000/- as full and final settlement.

It is further stated in the reply that no such compromise proposal was forwarded to the Bank.

It is true that the instant case runs ex parte against the OP Bank. But that does not necessarily indicate that the credibility of the representation of the Complainant is unquestionable.

However on consideration of all these aspects, this Commission is of the opinion that any sort of deficiency of service or unfair trade practiceon the OP Bank’s part cannot be established and the complaint petition is devoid of substance. Hence, it is

                                      ORDERED

that the complaint case no.114/2019 be and the samestands dismissed ex parte.

However, there is no order as to costs.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgments/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.