Orissa

Jajapur

CC/218/2012

Smt.Ratnamala Samal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asst.General Manager ,SBI,Jajpur Town Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Alok Kumar Pane

27 Apr 2015

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:  1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President,

                                                                        2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                        3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

                                       Dated the 27th day of April,2015.

                                       C.C.Case No.218 of 2012

 

Smt. Ratnamala Samal W/O Sri Sudipta Samal

 At. Singhpur, P.O. Singhpur

Dist.Jajpur.                                                                                       …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.Asst.Gen.Manager,State Bank of India, Jajpur Town Branch 

    At/P.O/ Jajpur Town, Dist. Jajpur.

2. Inspector of Schools ,At/P.O/Dist. jajpur .

3. Head Master Singhpur High School, At/P.O. Singhpur, Dist.jajpur.                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                            …………………..Opp.Parties.

For the Complainant:                           Sri A.K.Pani, Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties No.1                     Sri P.K.Daspattnaik , Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties No.2                       A.G.P.

For the Opp.Parties No.3                     Self                                                                                     

                                                                             Date of order:   27. 04. 2015.

MISS SMITA RAY, LADY MEMBER .

                        The petitioner has filed this  dispute as 2^nd complaint which is in continuation of the 1^st dispute bearing No.71/09 having different date of cause of action basing on the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2000(2) CPR-27-SC.

                        The facts  as stated by the petitioner in this dispute shortly are that the petitioner being Govt. Hindi Teacher of Singhpur Hihg School within the jurisdiction of Jajpur District had availed the loan of Rs.1,20,000/- on 27.01.2007  from O.P no.1 through O.P no.2 and 3 who are the controlling authority as well as DDO of the petitioner . As per term and condition of the above loan the O.P no.2 and 3 are required to repay the above loan along with interest in 120 monthly installments starting from July-2007 from the salary of the petitioner having each monthly installments as Rs.1775/- . It is alleged by the petitioner that though O.P. no.2 and 3 were deducting the installments from the salary of the petitioner from July-2007 but the O.P. no.1 after making the status of the petitioner’s S.B A/C as “Hold” served a demand notice to the petitioner claiming Rs.24,795/- as over due amount as on 31.03.2009 towards the above cited loan of the petitioner . After receipt of the letter of O.P no.1 though the petitioner intimated the O.P. no.1 by R.P that the petitioner is no way liable to pay the above claiming amount  owing to regular  deduction of installment of loan from July-2007 but the O.P no.1 without considering the factual aspects arbitrarily makes the status of petitioner ‘s S.B A/C as ‘ Hold ‘  for which the petitioner finding no other way had filed a C.D.Case bearing No.71/2009 in this Hon’ble Forum. The Hon’ble Forum in deciding the dispute without looking to the merit of the case  as per observation of Chhatisgarh State Commission reported in 2009(4) CPR-217 dismissed the C.D.Case No.71/2009 since it relates to accounts matter. Accordingly the petitioner has filed the present dispute as 2^nd complaint as per observation of Appex Court reported in 2002(6) SCC-635-SC,2003-CTJ-849,2008(1)CPR-421 (NC) with the prayer to direct the O.P no.2 re-comply the accounts as per documents submitted by O.P no.2 and 3 as well as award compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony of the petitioner, since the O.P no.1 again has made the S.B A/C of the petitioner as “ Hold “ on 21.10.2010,  24.12.2010, 10.05.2011 as well as has debited Rs.15,000/- on 13.02.2010 from the S.B A/C of the petitioner.

                        In the present case though there are 3 nos of O.Ps but O.P. no.1 after appearance filed the written version. The O.P. no.2 after appearance has not filed the written version . Similarly the O.P no.3 after appearance at the belated stage i.e 03.11.2014 has filed the acquaintance role indicating the deduction of monthly installments of the petitioner towards loan.

                        In the written version the O.P no.1 has taken the stand that the  O.P. no.1 is no way liable for the alleged grievance of the petitioner . According to O.P no.1. The petitioner as per recommendation of O.P no.2 and 3 being a Govt. employee  had availed the loan of Rs.1,20,000/- in the year 2007 from O.P no.1. As per term and condition of the above cited loan  the O.P no.2 and 3 are required to clear up the loan along with interest in 120 installments starting from July-2007 from the monthly salary of the petitioner. But in the present case due to default in payment of installments towards loan the O.P. no.1 finding no other way making the status of S.B A/C of the petitioner  as ‘ Hold “ served a demand notice on13.04.2009 claiming Rs.24,795/- as over due installments . As against such demand the petitioner though has filed a dispute bearing No.71/2009 but the same was dismissed by this Hon’ble Forum. Further it is stated by O.P no.1 that though the petitioner is paying the monthly installments but the mode of payment  made by her  is indiscipline manner for which  the O.P. no.1 put  series of hold in her  S.B account for realization of the outstanding amount. Owing to above action of O.P no.1 the petitioner again has filed the present dispute claiming compensation to which the O.P. no.1 is no way liable for which the dispute is liable to be dismissed.

                        In the present case, the O.P no.2 though has not filed the written version but 17.07.2013 has filed a acknowledgement  receipt dt.10.04.2013.Similarly the O.P. no.3 though has not filed the written version but as per direction of this Fora dt.27.02.2013 the O.P. no.3  has filed the acquaintance role of the petitioner on 03.11.14.

                        On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the side of the petitioner and O.P. no.1. Perused the pleading and documents filed by both the parties. After perusal of the record  we are inclined to dispose of the dispute as per our observations  stated below:

 

1. Admittedly the petitioner has availed a loan of Rs.1,20,000/- from O.P. no.1 which is required to be repaid through O.P no.2 and 3 in 120 monthly installments  @  Rs.1775/-.
2. After verification of the acknowledgement receipt dt.10.04.2013 filed by O.P no.2 on 17.07.2013 we are in the opinion that such receipt does not indicates who has issued such acknowledgement receipt  and for what purpose.
3. Similarly after verification of the acquaintance role of the petitioner filed by O.P no.3 it is cristal clear that the O.P. no.3 though is required to deduct the monthly installments of loan of the petitioner from July-2007 but in the present case the O.P. no.3 has not deducted the same from October-2009 which is the mandatory duty of O.P. no.2 and 3.

                        The above clarification from our side clearly go to establish that O.P. no.2 and 3 committed patent deficiency in service for which the status of the S.B A/C of the petitioner became non functional by O.P no.1 . Accordingly the blame shall be placed at the door of O.P no.2 and 3 as per observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1993( III) CPJ-7-Sc (Lucknow Dev Authority Vrs.M.K.Gupta) .

O R D E R

                         In the result the dispute is  allowed against O.P no. 2 and 3.  The O.P no.2 and 3 nare directed to reconcile the loan account lying with O.P no.1 within one  month after receipt of the order. As regards compensation we also allow Rs.20,000/- towards compensation to be paid by the then O.P no.2 and 3 (50% each ) to the petitioner within one month as per observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2001(3) CPR-1-199-NC failing which the O.P no.2 and 3 are liable to pay interest @ 10 % per annum from the date of filing the present dispute till its realization .               

      This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27th day of April ,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.

                                                                                               

                                                                                                  (Miss Smita Ray)                                                         

 (Shri Biraja Prasad Kar )                                                            Lady  Member.                                                                      

              President.                                                Typed to my dictation & corrected by me

                                                                                   

                                                                                       

 (Shri Pitabas Mohanty)                                                             (Miss Smita Ray)                                                         

              Member.                                                                          Lady  Member.