Sudeb Surul Vs. Chief Manager, State Bank of India - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1148958
CourtWest Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided OnJan-03-2014
Case NumberS.C. Case No. : FA/243 of 2012
JudgeKALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. M. ROY, MEMBER
AppellantSudeb Surul
RespondentChief Manager, State Bank of India
Excerpt:
mridula roy, member: the instant appeal is directed against the order dated being no. 55 dated 18.04.2012 passed by the ld. district forum, hooghly in case no. 58/2007 dismissing the petition of complaint on contest without cost. being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the complainant has preferred the instant appeal. the complainants case before the ld. district forum, in brief, is that he, an assistant teacher of a high school, obtained a personal loan of rs.1,39,000/- in 2004 and the same was disbursed by the o.p. and also credited in the account of the complainant being no. .sb. a/c no. 01190014361. subsequently, the a/c no. was changed to 10515307547. the said loan was repayable by some instalments and the o.p. compelled the complainant to hand over 36 numbers of blank cheques in favour of the o.p. towards repayment of the loan by instalments. however, on 21.02.2005 the o.p. deposited one of the said blank cheques inserting a figure rs.4,000/- and encashed the same towards repayment of the said loan. the complainant also stated that he defaulted in making repayment of the said loan owing to his financial constraint for the time being. further, the o.p. without serving any information to the complainant, deposited one of the cheques vide no. 169276 dated 26.06.2006 inserting a figure rs.59,360/- and deposited the same for encashment towards repayment of the said loan but the said cheque was returned with remark œinsufficient fund? and for that reason the o.p. filed a criminal case under section 138 of the n. i. act before the ld. court of judicial magistrate, hooghly. the complainant has further alleged that the complainant visited the o.p. “ bank and deposited certain amount of money from time to time towards repayment of the said loan but, surprisingly the complainant found that the o.p. “ bank deducted rs.4,185/- from the said loan and the said had been reflected in the statement of account dated 12.02.2007 and it also reflected that the complainant had still to repay rs.1,59,789.23 for the said loan. the complainant also stated that due to the illegal activities on the part of the bank he became harassed and had to suffer a lot. accordingly, he prayed for direction upon the o.p. to pay rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and suffering and rs.20,000/- for harassment and rs.10,000/- for cost of litigation, to supply the correct statement of accounts in respect of the said loan, to cancel the cheque being no. 169276 dated 26.06.2006 having an amount of rs.59,360/-. the o.p. appeared and contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing all material allegations stating, inter alia, that the complainant obtained a loan of rs.1,39,000/- as per agreement executed by the complainant on 31.12.2004. the said loan was repayable by 48 equated monthly instalments @ rs.3,710/-. the o.p. also stated that as per terms of the agreement the complainant deposited some post dated cheques out of which one having number 169276 dated 26.06.2006 for an amount of rs.59,360/- deposited towards arrear of instalments was dishonoured due to insufficient fund. thereafter, the bank sent advocates notice dated 29.06.2006 by registered post with a/d to the complainants residential address and also to the address of the school where the complainant served as an assistant teacher. the notice was duly acknowledged by him but no step was taken from his end and the o.p. “ bank having no other alternative filed a criminal case against the complainant before the court of cjm hooghly on 10.08.2006 which was registered as c.r. case no. 275 of 2006. it is the further contention of the o.p. “ bank that one chandi some, s/o late banamali some of taldanga, kundu gali, p.o. “ buroshibtala, hooghly was the guarantor of the said loan and he also defaulted in repayment of his personal loan by depositing cheques for emi which were also dishonoured and the bank authority instituted a criminal case under section 138 of n. i. act against him. according to the o.p. “ bank in view of the above facts and circumstances the complaint has no merit and that should be dismissed with cost. parties filed affidavit on evidence followed by cross-examination.in course of argument ld. advocate for the appellant has submitted that loan obtained on verbal assurance and the complainant used to repay the loan by making payment of emi as per terms of the agreement. but, due to financial constraint the complainant defaulted in making payment of emi. the appellant also submitted that 36 numbers of blank cheques were issued by him to the o.p. “ bank for making payment of emi within stipulated time. the ld. advocate for the appellant further stated that since the cheque for an amount of rs.59,360/- was dishonoured by the bank the respondent “ bank initiated a criminal case and at the same time the o.p. “ bank also sent a notice demanding rs.1,63,974/- towards repayment of the said loan. according to the ld. advocate for the appellant, the demanded amount was exorbitant one. according to the ld. advocate for the appellant, the o.p. “ bank is deficient in providing service which caused much harassment and mental agony to the complainant for which the bank is liable to compensate the complainant aptly. ld. advocate for the appellant further submitted that the ld. district forum erroneously dismissed the petition of complaint and that impugned order should be set aside. none was present for the respondent “ bank. it appears from the record that the complainant took a loan of rs.1,39,000/- in 2004 and the same was repayable by some equated monthly instalments as per terms of the agreement executed by and between the complainant and bank. the complainant stated that the bank compelled him to deposit 36 numbers of post dated cheques towards repayment of the loan. the complainant admitted that he defaulted in making repayment of the loan as per terms of the agreement due to financial constraint. further, the complainant also stated that the bank deposited a cheque issued by the complainant of an amount of rs.59,360/- towards repayment of the emi and the same was dishonoured by the bank due to insufficient fund. on the other hand, the o.p. “ bank in its written version stated that it deposited the said amount i.e. rs.59,360/- towards arrear payment of instalments since the complainant had already defaulted in making payment of some instalments. but, the said cheque was dishonoured by the bank and the same was communicated to the notice of the complainant by serving a legal notice dated 29.06.2006. the complainant did not take any step towards that and the bank initiated a case under section 138 of the n. i. act. it is an admitted fact that the complainant defaulted in making payment of instalments. therefore, the bank deposited the cheque of rs.59,360/- towards repayment of the loan of the complainant which was dishonoured due to insufficient fund. since, the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient fund the bank has every right to initiate a case under section 138 of the n. i. act and the bank cannot be held deficient in providing service to the complainant. further, the complainant alleged that the o.p. “ bank compelled him to deposit 36 numbers of blank cheques with the bank towards repayment of the loan. but, it appears from the cross-examination that the complainant replied for question no. 36 put by the o.p. “ bank œthe bank did not force me to sign the blank cheque but compelled me to deposit 36 blank cheques in their favour as security of the loan?. further, no general diary etc. has been lodged by the complainant to that effect. therefore, the claim made by the complainant that the bank compelled him to deposit the blank cheques with it has not been substantiated by the complainant. in view of the foregoing state of affairs we are of opinion that the ld. district forum rightly dismissed the petition of complaint and there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. in the result, the appeal fails. hence, ordered that the appeal is dismissed exparte without cost. the impugned judgement is affirmed.
Judgment:

Mridula Roy, Member:

The instant appeal is directed against the order dated being No. 55 dated 18.04.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Hooghly in Case No. 58/2007 dismissing the petition of complaint on contest without cost.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the Complainant has preferred the instant appeal.

The Complainants case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, is that he, an Assistant Teacher of a High School, obtained a personal loan of Rs.1,39,000/- in 2004 and the same was disbursed by the O.P. and also credited in the account of the Complainant being No. .SB. A/c No. 01190014361. Subsequently, the A/c No. was changed to 10515307547. The said loan was repayable by some instalments and the O.P. compelled the Complainant to hand over 36 numbers of blank cheques in favour of the O.P. towards repayment of the loan by instalments. However, on 21.02.2005 the O.P. deposited one of the said blank cheques inserting a figure Rs.4,000/- and encashed the same towards repayment of the said loan. The Complainant also stated that he defaulted in making repayment of the said loan owing to his financial constraint for the time being. Further, the O.P. without serving any information to the Complainant, deposited one of the cheques vide No. 169276 dated 26.06.2006 inserting a figure Rs.59,360/- and deposited the same for encashment towards repayment of the said loan but the said cheque was returned with remark œinsufficient fund? and for that reason the O.P. filed a criminal case under Section 138 of the N. I. Act before the Ld. Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly. The Complainant has further alleged that the Complainant visited the O.P. “ Bank and deposited certain amount of money from time to time towards repayment of the said loan but, surprisingly the Complainant found that the O.P. “ Bank deducted Rs.4,185/- from the said loan and the said had been reflected in the Statement of Account dated 12.02.2007 and it also reflected that the Complainant had still to repay Rs.1,59,789.23 for the said loan. The Complainant also stated that due to the illegal activities on the part of the Bank he became harassed and had to suffer a lot. Accordingly, he prayed for direction upon the O.P. to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and suffering and Rs.20,000/- for harassment and Rs.10,000/- for cost of litigation, to supply the correct statement of accounts in respect of the said loan, to cancel the cheque being No. 169276 dated 26.06.2006 having an amount of Rs.59,360/-.

The O.P. appeared and contested the case by filing Written Version denying and disputing all material allegations stating, inter alia, that the Complainant obtained a loan of Rs.1,39,000/- as per agreement executed by the Complainant on 31.12.2004. The said loan was repayable by 48 Equated Monthly Instalments @ Rs.3,710/-. The O.P. also stated that as per terms of the agreement the Complainant deposited some post dated cheques out of which one having number 169276 dated 26.06.2006 for an amount of Rs.59,360/- deposited towards arrear of instalments was dishonoured due to insufficient fund. Thereafter, the Bank sent Advocates notice dated 29.06.2006 by registered post with A/D to the Complainants residential address and also to the address of the school where the Complainant served as an Assistant Teacher. The notice was duly acknowledged by him but no step was taken from his end and the O.P. “ Bank having no other alternative filed a criminal case against the Complainant before the Court of CJM Hooghly on 10.08.2006 which was registered as C.R. Case No. 275 of 2006. It is the further contention of the O.P. “ Bank that one Chandi Some, S/o Late Banamali Some of Taldanga, Kundu Gali, P.O. “ Buroshibtala, Hooghly was the guarantor of the said loan and he also defaulted in repayment of his personal loan by depositing cheques for EMI which were also dishonoured and the Bank authority instituted a criminal case under Section 138 of N. I. Act against him. According to the O.P. “ Bank in view of the above facts and circumstances the complaint has no merit and that should be dismissed with cost.

Parties filed Affidavit on Evidence followed by cross-examination.In course of argument Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that loan obtained on verbal assurance and the Complainant used to repay the loan by making payment of EMI as per terms of the agreement. But, due to financial constraint the Complainant defaulted in making payment of EMI. The Appellant also submitted that 36 numbers of blank cheques were issued by him to the O.P. “ Bank for making payment of EMI within stipulated time. The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant further stated that since the cheque for an amount of Rs.59,360/- was dishonoured by the Bank the Respondent “ Bank initiated a criminal case and at the same time the O.P. “ Bank also sent a notice demanding Rs.1,63,974/- towards repayment of the said loan. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, the demanded amount was exorbitant one. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, the O.P. “ Bank is deficient in providing service which caused much harassment and mental agony to the Complainant for which the Bank is liable to compensate the Complainant aptly. Ld. Advocate for the Appellant further submitted that the Ld. District Forum erroneously dismissed the petition of complaint and that impugned order should be set aside.

None was present for the Respondent “ Bank.

It appears from the record that the Complainant took a loan of Rs.1,39,000/- in 2004 and the same was repayable by some Equated Monthly Instalments as per terms of the agreement executed by and between the Complainant and Bank. The Complainant stated that the Bank compelled him to deposit 36 numbers of post dated cheques towards repayment of the loan. The Complainant admitted that he defaulted in making repayment of the loan as per terms of the agreement due to financial constraint. Further, the Complainant also stated that the Bank deposited a cheque issued by the Complainant of an amount of Rs.59,360/- towards repayment of the EMI and the same was dishonoured by the Bank due to insufficient fund. On the other hand, the O.P. “ Bank in its Written Version stated that it deposited the said amount i.e. Rs.59,360/- towards arrear payment of instalments since the Complainant had already defaulted in making payment of some instalments. But, the said cheque was dishonoured by the Bank and the same was communicated to the notice of the Complainant by serving a legal notice dated 29.06.2006. The Complainant did not take any step towards that and the Bank initiated a case under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. It is an admitted fact that the Complainant defaulted in making payment of instalments. Therefore, the Bank deposited the cheque of Rs.59,360/- towards repayment of the loan of the Complainant which was dishonoured due to insufficient fund. Since, the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient fund the Bank has every right to initiate a case under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and the Bank cannot be held deficient in providing service to the Complainant.

Further, the Complainant alleged that the O.P. “ Bank compelled him to deposit 36 numbers of blank cheques with the bank towards repayment of the loan. But, it appears from the cross-examination that the Complainant replied for question No. 36 put by the O.P. “ Bank œThe Bank did not force me to sign the blank cheque but compelled me to deposit 36 blank cheques in their favour as security of the loan?. Further, no general diary etc. has been lodged by the Complainant to that effect. Therefore, the claim made by the Complainant that the Bank compelled him to deposit the blank cheques with it has not been substantiated by the Complainant.

In view of the foregoing state of affairs we are of opinion that the Ld. District Forum rightly dismissed the petition of complaint and there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

In the result, the appeal fails.

Hence, ordered that the appeal is dismissed exparte without cost. The impugned judgement is affirmed.