Orissa

Kendujhar

CC/47/2016

Kartikeswara Mahanta - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Branch Manager, SBI, (Evening) Mining Branch - Opp.Party(s)

07 Apr 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,                    KENDUJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO.47 OF 2016

     Kartikeswara Mahanta,

     S/o: Late Gokula Mahanta,

     At: Kaberipasi, P.O: Junga,

     Dist.: Keonjhar………………………………..………………………….Complainant

                        Vrs.

1. Branch Manager,

    S.B.I., (Evening) Mining Branch,

    At: Mining Road, Near Labanya Chhak,

    P.O/Dist.: Keonjhar

2. Branch Manager,

    S.B.I., Janghira Branch, Janghira,

    Dist.: Keonjhar……………….……………………………………………Op. Parties

 

PRESENT:

Shri Purushottam Samantara, President

Smt. B. Giri, Member (W)

Advocate for Complainant- Self

Advocate for OP1- None

Advocate for OP2- Sri Rajesh Ranjan Rana

_______________________________________________________________________________ 

Date of Filing: 31.10.2016                                                                                    Date of Order: 07.04.2017

____________________________________________________________________________                                                                    

SHRI PURUSHOTTAM SAMANTARA, PRESIDENT

1. Succinctly put, the complainant availed a business loan from State Bank of Janghira, Keonjhar in earning for his livelihood on 14^th Dec. 2001 under Samanwita Gramya Unnayan Yojana. The loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.30,000/- which carries a subsidy of Rs.7,500/-.

2. The complainant averred, made payment of Rs.3,100/- total from dt.01/02/2002 to dt.23.12.2003 in conforming to the issuing receipts.

3. Further said on 2006 loan rebate/ waived off scheme has been declared so clearance certificate to be issued because of entire loan repayment.

4. Also averred, the complainant retained another account in SBI Evening Mining Branch, bearing account No.32502287543 and complained, the OP has deducted an amount of Rs.37,000/- towards loan dues adjustment without any intimation, notice or authorization.

5. Further added, the amount accumulated for future insecurity and unforeseen health issues, which has been made set-off being complete illegal in nature.

6. The non-issuance of clearance certificate by the bank amounts to deficiency of service, illegal and harassed one and mental agonizing, praying to refund the amount as debited from account in question along with cost and reliefs deemed fit. Made reliance on passbook pages in photo copy and affidavit.

7. In pursuant to notice OP2 filed the version in contending the complaint is not maintainable above all the case has been filed to grab Public Money and to avoid his liability.

 8. Also said, the complainant is a debtor and the OP is a creditor, which not encompass, within the purview of the Act.

9. The OP also admitted on dated 26.11.2001 made application to the BDO, Harichandanpur and the loan was sanction under IRDP SGSY for Pan Shop on dt.14.12.2001 EMI being Rs.600/- to be paid in 48 installments.

10. Further admitting because of overdue after completion of term, the loan became bad debt and the letter dated 12.06.2016 demanding an outstanding dues of Rs.78,204/- and in admission that on dt.18.07.2016 debited an amount of Rs.37,000/- from the credit balance of Rs.78,918/- towards recovery. 

11. On the other hand no loan waiver scheme has been taken into account on the year 2006 even the borrower has not applied for any rephasement or compromise in the loan account, liquidation of bad debt and any method of set-off is no more coming under the purview of the deficiency, thus liable to be dismissed in limine. Relied on loan application, composite loan Agreement and letter of Arrangement.   

12. Heard the complainant at length and the counsel at extensive note. Perused the material on record.

13. It is no more in the dispute that the finance has been made and the complainant miserably failed in repaying the dues in stipulated terms of the month and time.

14. We also do not find any material or any supportative document or substantative information that on the year 2006, some loan waiver scheme has been declared and same is applicable to the present borrowing in open up a Pan shop. Hence the advancement by the petitioner has a heresy, thus no leg to stand.

15. Further the petitioner has paid paltry amounts towards his repayment. No excuse is adorable on any pretext to avoid any liabilities.

16. Again the amount raised in post-declaration of bad debt cannot be accumulated as per the normal norms. The rules and regulation in declaration of NPA has not accorded or pleaded or ensured in transparent manner is not produced before this forum which amounts to concealing and suppressing of the fact in willful manner. 

17. The other core question raised, the deduction as made from another account in other branch has got legal sanctity or not.

18. We notice and perusal of Passbook bearing Account No.32502287543 has respectively deducted Rs.30,000/- and Rs.7,000/- on 18.07.16 is entirely illegal and arbitrary as per the settle principle and couple with RBI guidelines that postulates transferring to the loan Account under set off right is contrary to the law as no agreement to this effect has been produced or documentary evidence adduced in empowerment to act, we find the banks have right to exercise lien under section 171 of the Contract Act against dues from constituents/ customers and even the bank cannot exercise lien over the personal account of a customer on the ground that money was due to the bank in another account, where he acts in a different capacity if there is no agreement to that effect in consistent with the contemplation under Contract Act and Banking Regulation Act, so the bank has committed fault leading to deficiency as per the terms of section 2(g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, thus liable to pay.

O R D E R

          The OP2 is hereby directed to refund back the amount of Rs.37,000/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand) only as deducted with normal accrual made under the contract in crediting the account from which it is transferred and also pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only as compensation towards harassment & mental agony within 30 days of this order, failing @9% interest per annum will accrue on the entire amount from the date of credit/deduction as made till realization.

(ii) No order as to cost.

(iii) The petitioner is to pay the installment regularly from onwards, the overdue penalty to be waived off and the petitioner in conciliation make application for rephasement or any mode of repayment as per RBI guidelines.

(iv) Non-repaying the dues by the petitioner, the bank has liberty to advance as per due recourse of law without any demur.

 

Copy of the Order be made available to the parties as per rule.

File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced, 7^th April 2017.         

 

                                                                                                                                                             

     I agree             

                                    

                                    

    (Smt. B. Giri)                                                                                            (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

    Member (W)                                                                                                              President                    

DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                                                                   DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                   

           

 

                                                                               Dictated & Corrected by me

 

 

 

                                                                              (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

                                                                                          (President)

                                                                                    DCDRF, Keonjhar