State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager, Punjab National ... vs Mr. Subhas Ranjan Ghorai & Others on 22 January, 2013
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/41/2012 (Arisen out of Order No. 43 dt. 9.1.12 of CDRF, Unit-I, Kolkata, in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 180/2007) DATE OF FILING : 03.02.2012 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 22.01.2013 APPELLANT The Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Khidderpore Branch 73/A, Diamond Harbour Road P.S. Watgunge Kolkata-700 023. RESPONDENTS 1. Mr. Subhas Ranjan Ghorai S/o Late Chittaranjan Ghorai 51/2A, Monsatala Lane P.S. Watgunge Kolkata-700 023. PROFORMA RESPONDENTS 2. Mr. Bhabesh Mitra S/o Rohini Mitra (Erstwhile Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Kidderpore Branch) Residing at Vivekananda College Road 26, Sukanto Park, P.S. Thakurpukur Kolkata-700 063. 3. General Manager P.N.B. Eastern Zone Apeejay House, 4th Floor 15, Park Street P.S. Park Street Kolkata-700 016. 4. The Vigilance Officer, Eastern Zone, Punjab National Bank Apeejay House, 4th Floor, 15, Park Street P.S. Park Street, Kolkata-700 016. 5. Borough Youth Officer, Borough IX Govt. of West Bengal, Sports & Youth Services Deptt. (Youth Services Branch) 11, Belvedere Road, P.S. Alipore Kolkata-700 027. 6. Secretary, State Transport Authority Govt. of West Bengal Writers Buildings, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata-700 001. BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MR. S.COARI MEMBER : MRS. MRIDULA ROY FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. S.P.Basu, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : In person : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against Order No. 43 dt. 9.1.12 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata, in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 180/2007, wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint on contest against all the Ops and with cost against the OP Nos. 1 to 3, with a direction upon the OP Nos. 1 to 3 to be jointly and severally liable to discharge the KVP of Rs. 21,500/- only, which was pledged before the OP/Bank and with a further direction to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity of the KVP amount till the date of discharge and/or pledge along with a further direction upon the OP Nos. 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-.
The case of the Complainant/Respondent before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant, an unemployed youth, after observing all the formalities applied for loan facility before the OP/Bank under the Scheme Bangla Swanirvar Karmasansthan Prakalpa (Atmamarjada) and in the process, pledged a KVP of Rs. 21,500/-, LIC Policy of Rs. 20,000/- and FDR of Rs. 60,000/- in favour of the Bank.
According to the complainant, though the Government and the Transport Department gave green signal in favour of the project of the complainant for the purpose of plying a luxury taxi, the Bank never extended loan facility to the complainant and hence, the petition of complaint for proper redressal.
The OP/Bank contested the case by filing a written version thereby denying and disputing all the allegations levelled against the Bank at the instance of the complainant contending inter alia that the complainant never applied for any loan facility before the Bank and that the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.
Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that in spite of all the formalities being fulfilled by the complainant and more so, when the Government had already sanctioned 20% subsidy in favour of the complainants self-employment project and there was green signal from the Transport Department in the matter of granting permit for luxury taxi business of the complainant, there was no rhyme and reason on the part of the Appellant Bank in not extending the loan facility to the complainant. In this context, the Ld. District Forum has also observed that though subsequently all the pledged documents except one were released in favour of the complainant, but the KVP document amounting to Rs. 21,500/- was never released in favour of the complainant and all these factors tantamounted to gross negligence and deficiency in service at the instance of the Bank and accordingly, disposed of the petition of complaint in favour of the complainant as mentioned above.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as mentioned above.
DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant/Bank that the complainant never fulfilled the terms and conditions of the loan under Bangla Swanirvar Karmasansthan Prakalpa (Atmamarjada) and as such, there was no alternative left before the Bank but to refuse extension of the loan facility to the complainant. While elaborating on this point the Ld. Advocate for the Bank has submitted before us that the complainant was asked to produce a suitable guarantor in respect of the loan facility to be extended in favour of the complainant, but as the complainant utterly failed to produce any suitable guarantor, the loan could not be extended, for which there is certainly no deficiency on the part of the Appellant/Bank and that the complainant himself was responsible in this regard. It is further submitted on behalf of the Appellant/Bank that the allegations on behalf of the complainant so far as it relates to the effect that the Bank sat tight over the matter is totally false. According to the Ld. Advocate, the Bank in writing had duly communicated to the complainant about the requirements in respect of the loan facility and the complainant having failed to comply with those requirements the loan facility could not be extended. The complainant did not ask for return of the KVP and as such, question of withholding the KVP in question does not arise at all and in this regard, there is no laches and/or lacuna on the part of the Bank. Ld. District Forum having failed to appreciate the actual state of affairs has arrived at a wrong and improper decision and considering all these factors the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Appellant/Bank and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned judgement and find that in this case the complainant has come forward with a case to the effect that after observing all the formalities in respect of a self-employment scheme the complainant approached the Bank for extending loan facility in favour of his project of running luxury taxi business and that in the process, the complainant had duly deposited valuable securities in favour of the Bank namely KVP deposit, LIC Policy deposit and fixed deposit. According to the complainant, in spite of fulfilling all the requirements the Bank did not extend loan facilities to the detriment of interest of the complainant and in the process, has practically ruined the future of the complainant and hence, the petition of complaint. The Bank, on the other hand, has tried to put up a case to the effect that the complainant having failed to observe the formalities and take the required steps and/or produce a reliable guarantor there was no alternative left before the Bank but to refuse the loan facility to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service at the instance of the Bank and that the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.
We have carefully gone through the impugned judgement and find that the Ld. District Forum has really appreciated the cases of the respective party and in disposing of the petition of complaint has left no stone unturned and in the process, has arrived at a just and proper decision. When from the materials on record it has become quite evident that the complainant in spite of observing all the formalities for the purpose of availing of the loan facility and more so, when the Government had released the subsidy in favour of the complainants project and that the Transport Department had also given green signal, i.e. granted permit in favour of the complainants luxury taxi business, there was practically no point on the part of the Appellant/Bank to refuse the loan facility to the complainant upon putting up some fictitious and imaginary pleas. Ld. District Forum having passed a very reasonable and judicious order we are not in a position to interfere with the same, which, in our opinion, should be confirmed. In the result, the Appeal fails.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs.
The impugned judgement stands confirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT