Orissa

Cuttak

CC/72/2016

Kailash Disels by its Propriertor Binod Kumar Tibarewal - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.G.M,Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

B B MIshra & associates

02 Jan 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.72/2016

 

Kailash Disels,

Represented by its Proprietor,

Binod Kumar Tibarewal,

S/O:LateNiranjanlalTibarewal,

At:Tiberewalnagar,N.H No.5,

P.O:Jagatpur,Dist:Cuttack.                                                 ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

Bank of India,Ranihat Branch,

At:Bajrakabati Road,Cuttack-753001,

Represented by A.G.M.                                                ... Opp. Party.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     07.06.2016

Date of Order:    02.01.2023

 

For the complainant:           Mr. B.B.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.             :              Mr.S.K.Behera,Adv,. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                         

          The case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had engaged himself for self-employment to earn his livelihood and thereby had availed the loan from the O.P Bank for proprietory business.   On  16.11.13 the loan was sanctioned in his favour to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and as per the agreement he started repaying the said loan to the O.P Bank.  He had paid a sum of Rs.9,03,164/- in the year 2013-14, Rs19,31,890/- in the year 2014-15, Rs.11,03,250/- in the year 2015-16, a sum of Rs.2,12,000/- on 29.1.2016 and Rs.1,30,000/- on 13.3.2016 to the O.P Bank.  Since there was dispute in between the complainant and the O.P bank as regards to the repayment of the loan as incurred by the complainant, the complainant requested the O.P bank on 25.4.13 to provide him the details of repayment schedule alongwith statement of account and copy of the loan agreement alongwith the details of the rephased loan.  The O.P bank had not provided those informations to him.   On 17.5.16, the O.P bank had provided some of those informations to the complainant but had notprovided all the documents as desired by the complainant.It is for this,  the complainant has come up with this case seeking direction to the O.P bank in order to provide him up-to-date statement  of the loan account, rephased loan account, loan agreement and the repayment schedule and also with a prayer for directing the O.P bank to pay him a compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment and further to meet his litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.20,000/-  He has also prayed for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper. 

          The complainant together with his complaint petition has filed copies of loan sanctioned letter, the terms and conditions thereto, the letter of the O.P bank addressed to the complainant in order to declare him as a wilful defaulter and the reply of the complainant to the said letter of the O.P bank. 

2.       On the other hand, the O.P bank has contested this case and has filed its written version wherein they have stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  It is averred in the written version of the O.P bank that after getting the letter from the complainant dt.25.4.16, the OP bank had intimated the complainant vide letter dt.17.5.16 indicating all the details and about the irregular payment made by him and about the NPA of the complainant’s account on 31.3.16.  The complainant had availed a term loan and cash credit facility from the Canara Bank without obtaining NOC and thereby had suppressed the fact which affects the norms and the guidelines of the banking regulations.  The O.P bank as per the request of the complainant pad rephased the loan account on 30.9.15 and had intimated about the same to the complainant but since because the complainant had remained silent without any intimation his account became NPA on 31.3.16.  The O.P bank is ready and willing to settle the loan account of the complainant but the complainant is not approaching for the same.  Thus, it is prayed by the O.P bank through his written version to reject the complaint petition.

          Together with the written version, the O.P bank has also filed the letter addressed to the complainant dt.17.5.17 disclosing to declare him as a wilful defaulter and has also filed certain other letters dt.9.11.17 and 17.12.15 reflecting the replies to the letters of the complainant.

3.    Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issues no.II.

Out of the three issues, issues no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

On perusal of the averments of the complaint petition and that of the written version of the O.P alongwith documents as filed from either sides in this case, it is noticed that admittedly, the complainant had obtained a loan of Rs.Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the O.P Bank which he was to repay but due to his irregular repayment and inspite of request of the O.P bank for re-phasement of the loan account, the complainant remained silent for which the O.P bank had to declare the loan account of the complainant as NPA after bringing the fact to the notice of the complainant.  Thus, from the materials and evidence as available in the case record, this Commission finds no deficiency in the service of the O.P in order to hold them guilty for the same.  Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the O.P.

Issues no.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is thus not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.

 

ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.P and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 2^ndday of January,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.   

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                                            Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                        Member