DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
M.A.-93/2018
C. C.-379/2016
Date of Filing: Date of Disposal:
03.04.2018 06.04.2018
Complainant: Swapan Kumar Ghosh, S/o S.K. Ghosh, 4/2, GuluOstogar Lane,
Kolkata-700 006. Presently residing at- Flat No-8, Block-D,
2nd Floor, AkashNilay, Narayanpur.
Vs.
Opposite Parties:- 1) Terrace & Top I Private Limited,
Represented by its Directors/Partners namely
Sri. Prabir Roy Chowdhury,
S/o Late Netai Roy Chowdhury,& Sri. PrathaMajumdar,
S/o Sri. Sadhan Kumar Majumdar,
Having City & Administrative Office at- BA-157, Sector-I,
Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 064.
Registered Office-P-9, Motijhil Avenue, Kolkata-700 074.
2) The Manager, ICICI Bank, 4/2, Gulu Ostagar Lane,
(Back Portion), Parjipara Park, Kolkata-700 006.
3) The Branch Manager,ICICI Bank Limited,
(Minto Park Branch), 5, Gorky Terrace, Kolkata-700 017.
P R E S E N T :-Sri.Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay………….President.
:-Smt. Silpi Majumder………………………………Member.
ORDER No-13
This order is arising out of the MA being no-93/2018 filed by the OP-2 and 3 in the C.C. no-379/2016 praying for expunging the names of the OP-2 and 3 from the cause title of the complaint.
In the application the said OPs have stated that the OPs sanctioned financial loan to the Complainant as the Complainant approached before them to avail of the same for purchasing a residential flat. Being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement the Complainant obtained the loan and purchased the flat from the OP-1. By way of deed of assignment dated 28.09.2007 the OPs have assigned the said loan account in favour of the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited including all right, title, interest and obligation for the aforementioned loan account and the same has been communicated to the Complainant by issuing a letter dated 31.05.2009, which was accepted by the Complainant. The OPs have contended that the liability to issue ‘NOC’ lies on ARCIL in the event of due repayment by the Complainant towards loan account, which had already been assigned to the ARCIL. Due to such assignment at this juncture the OP-2 and 3 have no liability to issue the NOC in favour of the Complainant and as such there can be no grievance against these OPs on behalf of the Complainant. So the Complainant has made these OPs as parties arbitrarily and with malafide intention in the cause title of the complaint, rather it is the duty of the Complainant to implead ARCIL as a necessary party in this proceeding for proper adjudication of this complaint. According to the OPs if this application is not allowed they will suffer irreparable loss and injury and prayer are made by the OPs for allowing this application.
The Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has raised vehement objection against this application verbally stating that is this application and prayer is allowed then the petition of complaint will be infructuous and the interest of the Complainant will also be seriously prejudiced. The Complainant has argued that service was availed of by him from the OP-2 and 3, not from the ARCIL, no agreement/contract was made by and between him and the ARCIL, rather loan agreement was executed by and between the OP-2, 3 and the Complainant. Therefore the OP-2 and the 3 are the proper persons who can redress the grievance of him and answer on the point of allegation as made out by him in the petition of complaint. According to the Complainant the names of the OP-2 and 3 should not be expunged and the application is liable to be dismissed with cost.
We have carefully perused the content of the application, heard verbal objection as raised by the Complainant and heard argument at length advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the contesting parties. It is seen by us that admittedly the Complainant obtained financial assistance from the OP-2 and 3 for purchasing the flat. Therefore it is clear to us that the Complainant availed of service from the OP-2 and 3. The OPs have submitted that as the Complainant had failed to repay the loan amount along with agreed interest component within due period, hence the loan account became NPA and the OPs have assigned the same to ARCIL along with entire papers and documents. For this reason no cogent papers and documents are lying within the custody of the OPs and the OPs are not in a position for production of the documents related to the questioned loan account of the Complainant. According to the OP-2 and 3 due to this reason the Complainant has made these OPs as parties in the cause title of the complaint unnecessarily and hence prayer is made for expunging the names of the OP-2 and 3 from the cause title of the complaint. In our view admittedly the Complainant did not hire any service from ARCIL and if any assignment is done by the OP-2 and 3 to the ARCIL, the same is done as per whim of the OPs and there is no role of the Complainant in such assignment. No contract for service was executed by and between the Complainant and the ARCIL; rather the same was executed by and between the Complainant and the OP-2 and 3. Further the OPs are also under the obligation to issue the NOC in favour of the Complainant after realizing the entire loan amount along with agreed interest component. It is submitted by the OPs that the NOC will be issued by the ARCIL, but in that respect there is no such document that ARCIL is liable to issue the NOC in favour of the Complainant. After considering the entire circumstances we are of the opinion that the prayer of the OP-2 and 3 should not be allowed.
Hence it is ordered that the MA being no-93/2018 is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the provision of the CPR, 2005.
Member President
Dictated & Corrected by me
