State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Debendra Prasad Mahato vs Br.Manager, Indus Indbank Ltd. on 16 July, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/19/A/92/2022
Mr. Debendra Prasad Mahato
PRESENT ADDRESS - S/o, Lt Jeebok Mahato. 25/4, Chakraberia Road South Bhawanipore,
Kolkata- 700 025. ,WEST BENGAL.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
Br.Manager, Indus IndBank Ltd.
PRESENT ADDRESS - Kolkata Branch, Flat No.- 2C, Duck Bag House, 41, Shakespeare Sarani,
Kolkata- 700 071. ,WEST BENGAL.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. AJEYA MATILAL , JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. NITYASUNDAR TRIVEDI , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Mr. Debendra Prasad Mahato, Mr. Aninda Sarkar, Mr. Bimal Kr. Halder (Advocate)
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Br.Manager, Indus IndBank Ltd., Sayak Ranjan Ganguly. (Advocate)
DATED: 16/07/2025
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Nityasundar Trivedi, Member This Appeal case arises out of dissatisfaction and grievance relating to the Judgment passed in CC NO.57 of 2019 passed by the DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-II on 08.04.2022. In that Judgment the Ld. DCDRF allowed the complaint of the present Appellant (who was Complainant of that case at the District, with an Order that the Opposite Party (Branch Manager, Indus Ind Bank Ltd., Kolkata Branch) shall return the original loan agreement papers, issue NOC along with no due Certificate relating to vehicle No.WB 02 AD 3820 and to give break up of dues of the loan, if not given in the meantime.
2. The history of the case is like that this Appellant took a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Respondent/O.P to be repaid by 59 instalments (Rs.12,650/- for the first instalment and 58 instalments and residual 58 instalments @Rs.11,700/ each) commensing on and from 07.08.2015. The Complainant paid all EMIs regularly excepting a few cheques bounced and consequent delay charges and AIC charge were added up to the loan account.
3. Due to this a sum of Rs.44,819/- fell as arrear.
4. It is learnt before coming to this Ld. DCDRC, the parties to this dispute availed the platform of the Consumer Grievance Cell of the Govt. of West Bengal who directed the O.P/Bank to submit the copy of loan agreement and break up dues of the loan account. It is learnt the O.P/Bank filed criminal case against the loanee for which the Complainant/loanee had to rush to take bail. It is also learnt the O.P/Bank took very stringent step (seizing the vehicle from the custody of the vehicle owner). In his observation the Ld. DCDRF has stated as on the date of passing Order there was no due payable by the Complainant, and the loan account has been closed by the O.P/Bank.
5. It is seen all along the O.P/Bank was very much harsh in treating the loanee and on 10th July, 2018 when there was dues of Rs.28,721.37 paise, the O.P/Bank issued directive upon the Appellant/Complainant to liquidate that amount within 7 days from the date of receipt of that letter failing which steps for taking recourse to take possession of the vehicle will be taken and further legal action both civil and criminal in nature was threatened. It is rarely found that in the mid of mediation stage at the behest of the Consumer Grievance Cell, Govt. of West Bengal, the O.P/Bank took such harsh step of initiating criminal case U/s.120B,406, 418, 420 & 34 IPC to counter which, at the instruction of the District Commission, Rs.40,000/- was paid to the O.P/Bank by the Appellant/Complainant (@Rs.10,000/- x 4 instalments). The main grievance of the Appellant/Complainant is he had to pay this Rs.40,000/- to counter his arrest in addition to an excess payment of Rs.44819/-. An added grievance is he was charged Rs.1,29,955/- as margin money instead of Rs.1,24,455/- and AIC charge were beyond purview of the contract.
6. The Appellant/Complainant complied this Order of the Ld. DCDRC, for which the loan was repaid in full which was admitted by the O.P/Bank also at the DCDRC.
7. The District Commission accordingly passed the impugned Order against which the Appellant/Complainant have come up with this Appeal. The main grievance of the Appellant/Complainant is the Respondent/O.P Bank unnecessarily went for threat of criminal case for which after moving from pillar to post he had to get his bail. Another grievance of the Appellant/Complainant is the Ld. DCDRF did not consider prayer of payment of the harassment cost of Rs.1,00,000/- and prayer of Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost due to which this present Appeal has been filed.
8. In a sense the Complainant succeeded at the District Level to win his case. But the Ld. DCDRF has not considered the harsh treatment of the O.P/Bank to brand a genuine loanee as a criminal defaulter and thereby caused enormous physical harassment and mental tension, anxiety and agony coupled with threat of being arrested for practically a trifle and trivial matter. We hold this aspect could have and should have been taken up by the Ld. District Commission. But since nothing of this sort happened, we are inclined to pass a compensation cost of Rs.1,00,000 (One Lac) to the Appellant/Complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.
9. Last but not the least since the Appellant/Complainant has received tremendous insultation being branded as a mischievous defaulter though he was only a virtually regular loanee for obvious reasons the Complainant was not interested to go the door step of the O.P/Bank to get back his loan agreement contract papers and details of loan closure statement which was Ordered by Ld. DCDRC. We accordingly direct the O.P/Branch Manager shall depute a responsible Officer of his Bank to go up to the Appellant/loanee in his last known address within a period of 60 days and handover the same under proper receipt, else will pay a penalty @100/- per day beyond the 60th day on this count.
10. Appellant will be at liberty to put this Order under Execution in case the O.P/Bank does not comply this Order within the stipulated period mentioned herein before.
11. Thus, the Appeal succeeds in part.
12. Free copies of this Order be available to both the sides.
13. Free copies of this Order also be sent down to the Ld. Commission below.
14. With this Order Appeal being No.A/92/2022 stands disposed of.
15. Note accordingly.
..................
AJEYA MATILAL JUDICIAL MEMBER ..................
NITYASUNDAR TRIVEDI MEMBER