Date of filing:- 15/02/2020. Date of Order/Judgement:-13/03/2023.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 21 of 2020.
Smt. Subasini Bhue, aged about 62 years, W/o. Dingra Bhoi, Occupation. Cultivation, Resident of and P/o. Godbhaga, Ps/Tahasil. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh
Complainant.
V e r s u s
- Branch Manager, UCO Bank of Godbhaga Branch, At/Po. Godbhaga, Ps/Tahasil.
Attabira, Dist. Bargarh.
(2) Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Sambalpur, At/Po. Budharaja, Dist. Bargarh.
(3) UCO Bank Regional Office, Building 3rd Floor C.2, Ashok Nagar, Unit 2,
Bhunaneswar 751009.
Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- :- Sri. M.K. Satpathy with associates.
For the Opposite Party No.1 :- :- Sri Ashwini Kumar Dash with associates.
For the Opposite Party No.2 &3 :- Ex-parte.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agarwal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.13/03/2023. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President :-
- The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a cultivator, In the year 2010 early part of January, the Complainant availed crop Loan from the Opposite parties to a tune of fRs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakh)only. In this regard she has also duely informed by the Bank. In pursuance to the same time to time the Complainant has been repaying the loan amount and till date she has already repaid a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/-(Rupees one lakh eighty thousand)only. Due to various family problem the Complainant could not repay the loan. She had negotiated several time with Bank officials for one time settlement but the bank had not proceeded towards any finality for the matter could not be set at rest. Recently Complainant got a notice purported to be served from Recovery officer where in it has been averred that O.A. No. 518 of 2016 has been initiated against her and an order has been passed there for repayment of a sum of Rs. 19,83,519/-(Rupees nineteen lakh eighty three thousand five hundred nineteen)only is liable to be paid by her. The Complainant has never been served with any notice from any forum and hoodwinking the truth the Bank has arbitrarily managed to get toe so called order. Further the Complainant submitted that she has already repaid Rs. 1,80000/-(Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) out of her loan amount Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakh)only. She had to pay Rs.3,20,000/-(Rupees three lakh twenty thousand) only with quated interests as per R.B.I. guidelines. Thus.
- The case of the Opposite parties is that the Opposite Party No.1 filed its version and Opposite Party No.2 and 3 did not appear in the Commission and did not file their version. The Opposite party No.1 admitted that the Complainant has availed a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakh)only from the Opposite party No.1. Further the Opposite party No.1 submitted that the Complainant defaulted in repayment of the loan as per agreement inspite of due request and repeated demand of the Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 served a demand notice on 05/01/2016 claiming Rs. 12,86,934/-(Rupees twelve lakh eighty six thousand nine hundred thirty four)only to the Complainant with her guarantor. Paramananda Sharma. But the Complainant with her guarantor remained silent. Then being compelled by the conduct of the outstanding repayment by Complainant no means would be Rs. 19,83,519/-/-(Rupees nineteen lakh eighty three thousand five hundred nineteen)only. The calculated amount is a misconception and miscalculated one. The Complainant has also served notice dated 19/08/2019 on the Opposite parties calling upon them to furnish her a detailed account status and settle her loan as one time settlement. The Opposite parties have received the notice but deferring the matter on different pretext on 2nd week of January 2020. The Opposite Parties denied to do so and further call upon her to clean up the outstanding at once lest. The act and conduct of the Opposite Parties are amounting to deficiency and negligence of service. Hence the Complainant filed this case before this Commission. The Complainant, the Opposite party No.1 filed O.A. No. 518/2016 claiming Rs. 15,52,339/-(Rupees fifteen lakh fifty two thousand three hundred thirty nine)only as due 30/04/2015 before the presiding officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack. The Honble Tribunal disposed of the O.A. No. 518/2016 on 21/10/2017 and passed an order for recovery of the aforesaid amount along with pendeatlite and future interest @ 10.75% per annum till final payment with cost. There after the presiding officer issued Recovery certificate to the Recovery officer for realization of amount. The Opposite party No.1 submitted that the present complaint of the Complainant is not tenable before this Commission since the matter has been adjudicated by the presiding officer Debt Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack. Who is competent to adjudicate the matter having jurisdiction, between the same parties, in the same matter, which has been remained unchallenged. Section 18 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act 1993 bars the Jurisdiction of this Commission in this matter. Hence the Opposite Party No.1 prayed for dismissal of the Case.
- Perused the record and it reveals that the Honble Debt Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack on dated 21/10/2017 passed an order of the O.A. No. 518/2016. This Commission has no power to entertain this case.
Accordingly the case is not maintainable and dismissed.
Order pronounced in open court on this 13th day of March 2023.
Supply free copies to the parties.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree/-
( Smt. Anju Agrawal) (Jigeesha Mishra)
Dt.13/03/2023 Dt.13/03/2023
M e m b e r (w) P r e s i d e n t
Uploaded by
(Sri Dusmanta Padhan)
Office Assistant.
