State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Narayan Chandra Neogi vs General Manager, Allahabad Bank & ... on 23 April, 2014
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal 11-A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET KOLKATA-700 087. S.C. CASE NO. : FA/555/2013 (Arisen out of judgment dt. 24.4.2013 of DCDRF, North 24 Parganas in C.C.Case No. 297/2011) DATE OF FILING : 23.05.2013 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 23.04.2014 APPELLANT Mr. Narayan Chandra Neogi S/o Late Banku Behari Neogi Residing at Vill. & P.O. Hijaipukuria P.S. Habra, Dist. North 24 Parganas. RESPONDENTS 1. General Manager Allahabad Bank 2, Netaji Subhas Road Kolkata-700 001. 2. Branch Manager Allahabad Bank Habra Branch P.O. & P.S. Habra Dist. 24 Parganas (North). 3. Assistant General Manager Allahabad Bank Barasat Dist. North 24 Parganas. BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT HONBLE MEMBER : MRS. MRIDULA ROY HONBLE MEMBER : MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. P.K.Basu, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mrs. Sumita Roy Chowdhury, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HONBLE MEMBER The instant Appeal U/S 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.4.2013 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas, in C.C.Case No. 297/2011, dismissing the Complaint.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Appellant/Complainant took from the Respondent-Bank/OPs Cash Credit Loan of ` 1,50,000/- (Vide Banks Sanction letter dated 9.6.2000) which stood at ` 7,00,000/- after second-time enhancement of the loan (Vide Banks letter dated 6.3.2006 of enhancement). Against such loan the Appellant/ Complainant pledged with and assigned in favour of the Respondent-Bank/OP the LIC Policies, FDs and DDPs and stock as securities. In course of transactions in the loan account the Respondent-Bank/OP reduced the rate of interest on the loan in question from 12.5% to 10.5% (PLR-1 of RBI / Banks letter dt. 2.8.2006) in response to the prayer of the Appellant/Complainant.
However, the Appellant/Complainant had defaulted in repayment of the loan in question. The Appellant/Complainant having defaulted in repayment of the loan the Respondent-Bank had proceeded with the adjustment procedure of the securities pledged with the Respondent-Bank/OPs by filing a Title Suit No. 675 of 2011 before the Ld. 1st Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Barasat (Vide Para-9 of Page-2 of the Written Version of the OP). In this backdrop, the Ld. District Forum passed the order impugned in the manner mentioned hereinbefore. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. District Forum, the Appellant has come before us.
The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/Complainant contends that the Ld. District Forum had made out a third case which is not permitted by law. It is also contended by the Ld. Advocate that the Ld. District Forum below passed the order whimsically without going into the merits of the case. Therefore, the Ld. Advocate submits, the order impugned should be set aside.
On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent-Bank/OP submits that the Appellant/Complainant having defaulted in repayment of the loan in question the Respondent-Bank had legally proceeded with the Title Suit, as mentioned earlier, for adjustment of the securities including the LIC polices against the defaulted amount of loan, and that the LIC policies being not in existence, the same could not be either re-assigned or returned. It is further contended by the Ld. Advocate that the Title Suit, as noted hereinbefore, having been pending before the competent Civil Court, the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case on hand. Lastly, the Ld. Advocate submits that the order of the Ld. District Forum is just and proper.
We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides and gone through the materials on record including the impugned order.
The undisputed position of the case is that the Appellant/ Complainant did default in liquidating the amount of loan in question. It is also not in dispute that the Title Suit, initiated by the Respondent-Bank/OPs before the Civil Court for adjustment of the securities assigned in favour of the latter, is pending, which the Appellant/ Complainant did not disclose before the Ld. District Forum below.
From the Written Version, as filed by the Respondent-Bank/OPs before the Ld. District Forum and as available on records, it appears that the Respondent-Bank had sanctioned the loan, enhanced its limit twice in response to the prayer of the Appellant/Complainant and eventually proceeded, for default in payment of the loan, with the recovery proceedings by filing a Title Suit for the adjustment of the securities pledged with them, and thus by resorting to the due process of law for recovery of the defaulted amount of loan, thereby indicating no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent-Bank/Ops.
In view of the discussions above, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. We find no substance in the Appeal, and hence, it is dismissed.
The order of the Ld. District Forum is affirmed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT