Date of filing:-24/09/2016.
Date of Order:-24/04/2019.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 37 of 2016.
Krushna Chandra Bhue. S/o. Lal Saheb Bhue, Occupation:-Cultivation, R/o:- Baddhara, P.o. Bara, P.s/Tahasil:- Ambabhana, Dist.Bargarh. ..... ..... Complainant.
V e r s u s.
The Chief Mananger, Utkal Gramya Bank, Head Office At/Po/Ps/Tahasil Dist:-Balangir.
The Branch Manager, Utkal Gramya Bank, Bhukta Branch, Bhukta, At/P.o.-Bhukta, P.s/Tahasil:- Ambabhana, Dist-Bargarh..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri M.K. Satapathy, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties:- Sri B.K.Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.24/04/2019. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Facts of the case:-
The case of the Complainant in nut shell is that he is bonafied customer of the Opposite Party Bank Bhukta having his account with it having facilitated with all banking facilities, incurred a Tractor loan from the said Opposite Party No.1(one) to earn his livelihood as he being an unemployed educated person, for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakh)only for which he deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only as down payment and an amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only for Insurance and for registration of the said Tractor, consequent upon which was given an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs)only as Loan by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and he purchased one Balwan Tractor with it’s trolly for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs)only with certain terms and condition being agreed with the Opposite Party No.1(one) for repayment of the same.
In furtherance to his case after the said purchase of the said tractor the Opposite Party was supposed to get it insured and registered and is to hand over the documents of the same to him, but did not supply him with those papers even after several request and reminder till yet consequent upon which he could not run with the same and emburdened with loan amount and the physical possession of the said tractor falling idle due to want of such certificate, but instead of that he was served with a notice from the DRT Cuttack for recovery of the Loan amount, without serving him any prior Notice from the Opposite Parties nor was given with OTS facility for the repayments of the same, which in his view is deficiencies in rendering him service on the part of the Opposite Party and as such the cause of action of filing the case in the Forum as of a case of deficiencies in rendering service on his part by not supplying him with required said papers for years together even though he has paid the required amount of money amounting to Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only for the same, for which he has been emburdened with Loan amount and the standing idle tractor, claiming an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-(Rupees seven lakh)only as compensation amount against his mental agony and physical harassment undergone by him due to such act of the Opposite Parties.
On perusal of the complaint and hearing the learned counsel for the Complainant the case seems to be a genuine one hence was admitted and notice was served upon both the Opposite Parties and in response both of them appeared before the Forum and filed their version through their Advocates.
The rival contention of the Opposite Parties as per their version is all evasive one to the case of the Complainant and has placed a voluminous reply in the said version wherein he has pleaded that most of the substantial portion of the averments made by the Complainant in his Complaint as ambiguous and matter of record amounting to denial of the same. In furtherance to their denial pleas they have contended to the averments made in the complaint that he has not been given prior Notice or any information and to his surprise they have preferred to file the matter directly before the DRT Cuttack and have asserted that sufficiently prior to filling of the case before the DRT they have reminded the Complainant and his guarantors with the opportunity to repay the Loan and on their failure to comply with the same have preferred to go to the said tribunal and have also contended that after being noticed from the said tribunal the Complainant has filed the case in the Forum with some imaginary facts of deficiencies of service against the Opposite Party and also cited some provision relating to the same justifying their such action and have prayed before the Forum to dismiss the case as not maintainable and devoid of any merit against them. And in substantiating their such case have relied on some documents and have filed the xerox copies of those documents which are listed to have been filed in the said Tribunal such as I(one) to 12(twelve).
Original application
Copy of the letter of arrangement dated 05/12/2017.
Copy of the Hypothecation Agreement dated 05/12/2007.
Copy of the deed of guarantee dated 05/12/2007.
Copy of the documents of title.
Copy of the letter confirming creation of equitable mortgage dated 26/12/2007.
Copy of the Notice dated 16/08/2012.
Copy of the Notice dated 29/01/2013.
Copy of the Notice dated 28/10/2005.
Copy of letter promising to pay the TBD dated 22/01/2016.
True copies of the statement of accounts along with certificate.
Vakalatnama.
And during the course of hearing of the case the learned Counsels of the respective parties vehemently argued on their respective cases and placed points of law and facts before the Forum.
On perusal of record and on examination of the materials available in the same and on hearing the submission made by those counsels of the Parties the following issues have come up before us to adjudicate the case properly.
Whether the case is maintainable in it’s present form in the Forum and whether the Opposite Party have committed deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant ?
Whether the Complainant is entitled to the claim made by him ?
While dealing with the Issues No.1(one) as to whether the case is maintainable in it’s present form and whether the Opposite Party have committed deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant, with much care and caution while delving deep in to the materials available in the record it is observed that it is an admitted fact that the Complainant has facilitated with a loan amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakh)only for purchase of a Tractor for earning his livelihood being an unemployed youth but with regard to his allegation that the Opposite Party has not provided him with the documents with regard to the Insurance and Registration of the same vehicle for which he could not ply the same to which he has reminded the Opposite Party for several time but to no effect from his side and as such being emburdened with the Loan amount and the idle tractor has suffered a lot. Such allegation has not at all being substantiated by a single scrape of paper to that effect, in as much as his allegation with regard to non service of any Notice or information at the instance of the Opposite Party with regard to the repayment of said loan has been strictly denied by the Opposite Party by filing three numbers of copies of letters from their end to substantiate to their pleas that sufficient opportunity has been given to the Complainant and the Guarantors vide Letters Dt.16.08.2012, Dt. 29.01.2013 & Dt. 28.10.2015 in as much as it has been observed that the Complainant has not filed any case in any legal authority nor in the Forum against the Opposite Party immediately after the alleged complain made and was not sorted out by the Opposite Party.
On the contrary it is observed that the case has not been filed till the receipt of the notice from the DRT Cuttack to which admitted by the Complainant himself in his Complaint, more so the Opposite Party has vehemently objected contending that such a case cannot be filed during the pendency of the matter before the DRT citing Section 17 & 18 of the recovery of Debts due to bank and financial Institution Act 1993 with a narrative observation of the same And in reply to the same the Learned Advocate for the Complainant has filed a Notification of Ministry of Finance Dt.06.09.2018 wherein it is notified that the power conferred by the sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the recovery of Debts tribunal due to Banks and financial institution Act 1993, the central Government hereby specifies that the provision of the said Act shall not apply where the amount of debt due to Bank or financial institution or to a consortium of Banks or financial institution is less than twenty lakh rupee. But while examining the same we don’t see any assertion is made therein where from it can be deduced that it is a prospective or retrospectively one furthermore It never empower any Legal Authority to interfere with the said tribunal hence in our logistic view the notification cannot be applicable here in this case being not maintainable in the Forum.
After due consideration of the facts and circumstances envisaged in the materials available in the record and also having given due wattage to the arguments advanced by the respective parties in our prudent view the Complainant has measurably failed to prove his case of deficiencies of service against the Opposite Parties in any manner. Accordingly the claims of the Complainant with regard to the compensation due to him for the deficiencies of service caused by the Opposite Parties is proved to be futile one hence rejected. Hence order follows .
O R D E R.
Considering the facts and circumstances available in the record and giving due wattage to the prevailing Law of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and financial Institution Act 1993. We observed that the case is devoid of any merit and bad for no cause of action hence the same is dismissed and is disposed off accordingly to-day on Dt.24.04.2019 being pronounced in the open Forum.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree,
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W)
Upload by
Sri Dusmanta Padhan,
Office Assistant (D.M.A.)
