Orissa

Jajapur

CC/69/2015

Prasanta Kumar Rout - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Biraja Prasad Parida,Pitambar Mishra

13 Oct 2017

ORDER

                    IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,                                                                                           

                                              Dated the 13^th  day of October,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.69 of 2015

Prasant Kumar Rout  S/O Late Narayan Rout

At.  Babalpur , P.O. Odisso ,Andeiguda ,Via. Dharmasala

 P.S.Kuakhia , Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

 

Asst.General Manager, State Bank of India,  Jajpur town Branch, Dt.jajpur.

                                                                                                                            ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                               Sri B.P.Parida, Sri P.Mishra,  Advocates.

For the Opp.Party  :                                 Sri P.K. Daspattnaik , Advocate.

                                                                                                     Date of order:   13.10.2017.

 SHRI  PITABAS MOHANTY,  MEMBER  .         

Deficiency in banking service is the grievance of the petitioner.

            The fact as stated by the petitioner in the complaint petition shortly are that father of the petitioner is an agriculturist and in order to  improve his cultivation purchased a Tractor,  Trolley  with all implements taking the  financial assistance of the O.P. on the strength of  an agreement. In the mean while the petitioner’s  father died  in the year of 2008. Subsequently in the same year i.e on 2007-08 the  Govt. of  India has implemented Debt Relief and Debt waiver scheme for the farmers . Thereafter the petitioner has repaid the entire loan amount of the O.P under the above scheme in the year of 2008.

            That  it is pertinent to mention here that after repayment of his portion or  share of outstanding of the loan account , the rest amount as per norms has been repaid by the Govt. of India under the Debt Relief and  Debt Waiver Scheme of 2007-08 . Hence the loan statement of account of the petitioner shown as balance nil .  Thereafter the O.P / bank released the title deeds documents which  are kept in the O.P  bank for the purpose of equitable mortgage  for the loan availed by his deceased father .  On the  same day the O.P  bank has also supplied a statement of

account  showing the balance in the loan acct as “ Zero” . and the O.P  bank issued a form no.35 to the R.T.O in favour of the petitioner . Thereafter the petitioner sold the vehicle to some body else in his locality in the year of 2015  but   the purchaser of the vehicle  could not  transferred the  R.C book to his own  name  because the R.T.O told him to bring the NOC from the financing bank /O. P   Thereafter on 12.7.15 the petitioner has gone to the office of the O.P  and made the demand of N.O.C in his favour for the above vehicle but the  O.P  refused to issue  N.O.C . Accordingly finding no other alternative way the petitioner knocked the door of this fora with the prayer to direct the O.P  to provide N.O.C in his favour and pay  Rs.55,000/-  as compensation and cost for mental agony and financial loss.

            After notices the O.P  appeared through their learned advocate  and subsequently filed their written version taking  following stands:

That the case is not maintainable in the  eye of law .

That the claim of the petitioner  is barred by law  of limitation  as prescribed  under  C.P.Act.

            The father of the petitioner has availed a tractor loan from O.P bank for his own agricultural purpose and  has utilized it for his own purpose to earn profit, but has  not  repaid the loan dues of the O.P  bank in usual and regular manner .  As a result of which the outstanding in the loan account  increased day by day . In the debt waver and debt relief announced by the central govt. in the union budget speech 2008, later on detail operation of the scheme was announced by the govt. of India . under the scheme there are three category of farmers i.e marginal farmer , small farmer and other farmer and the agricultural loan in categories in to three types i.e Direct Agricultural loan, short term production loan, Investment loan, under the debt waver and debt relief scheme 2008 the father of the petitioner case came within the category of, other farmers and as he has availed  loan for purchase of tractor under the scheme the borrower loan account is illegible for debt relief. Accordingly he has obtained the debt relief under the scheme. Out of the illegible amount the borrower has paid 75% rest 25% is paid by the Govt. as per ADW & DR scheme . The  time and prescribed norms are an essential factor to get the benefit under the scheme. Taking in to consideration complainant’s loan account payment was made by the petitioner  to the O.p bank and the borrower  loan was closed.

After full and final completion of the scheme Govt. of India entrusted its own auditing department i.e C.A.G to verify each and every loan  account eligible for the benefit. As per instruction of CAG the bank made fresh inquiry / verification, about the ADW & DR ,by its own audit department. Under the said audit/ re-verification the complainants father loan account though availed the benefit and closed the loan account but unfortunately the said account has been declared by re-verification audit as unfit to get the benefit under the scheme and amount deposited in his loan account by the  Govt, under the scheme has been withdrawn ,for which as on the balance in the loan account still showing as outstanding . Under the  circumstances the O.P bank has  never issued any  no  dues certificate to the complainant. In the above cited circumstances the bank is no way liable or deficient in providing services to the complainant.

            On the date of hearing we heard the arguments   for the learned counsels  for both the sides. After perusal of the record along with documents filed from both the sides it is observed that

1.it is undisputed fact that the petitioner’s father purchased a Tractor, Trolley taking financial assistance from the O.P  .  It is also undisputed  fact that after death of his father  in the year of 2008 the petitioner has  repaid the entire loan amount under Debt Relief and Debt Waiver Scheme declared  by Govt of  India in the year of 2007-08.  Thereafter the O.P also issued a  form no. 35 in the name of R.T.O chandikhole in favour of petitioner  to transfer  ownership and subsequently supplied statement of account wherein it is  reflected that the balance of outstanding   as “Zero” .

3.it is also a fact that when the petitioner in the year of 2015 sold the above vehicle  to some body  but unfortunately the purchaser  of  the above vehicle could not have transferred the R.C book to his own name on the ground of the concerned R.T.O chandikhole demanded  N.O.C  from the financial bank / O.P  but the O. P /bank refused to grant N.O.C in favour of the petitioner taking  the stand that;

: After full and final completion of the scheme  Govt. of  India entrusted its own audit   Department  i.e CS.A.G to verify each and every loan account eligible for the benefit .  As per instruction of C.A.G the bank made fresh inquiry/ reverification about the ADW and DR by  its  own audit  Department . Under the said audit  /reverification the petitioner’s father  though availed the benefit and closed the loan account but unfortunately the said account has been declared by  Reverification as  unfit to get the benefit  under the scheme and amount deposited in his loan account by the Government under the scheme has been withdrawn , for which as on the balance in the loan account still showing as outstanding but peculiarly   the O.P  bank has never issued any  N.O.C to the petitioner.

 In view of the above contradicting views  from both the sides we observed that  in the year 2007-08 the  Govt of  India declared  Debt Relief and debt  Wavier Scheme  and the  O.P  considered

that the petitioner is eligible for the above scheme and after instruction  of the O.P  the petitioner repaid  his portion of share of outstanding in  the loan account and the balance loan amount as per norms has been repaid by the Govt of  India. And subsequently the O.P released a form no-35 to the R.T.O, chandikhole  stating that  

“we hereby declared that the agreement of hire purchase / lease / hypothecation entered into between has been terminated we therefore requested that the notice endorsed in the certificate or  Registration of vehicle no. 0R-04-C-9214/9215  in respect of the said agreement between us be cancelled “.

On the other hand the O.P also released  the statement of loan account of the above vehicle where it has been  reflected the balance amount as “ZERO’ . In the circumstances  we are inclined to hold that when the  loan account was  already closed and balance shown as “ZERO’ and  form no-35 already issued,  subsequently under what circumstances  the O.P  demanded further loan outstanding  and such attitude of the O.p is not sustainable as per  law . Further the O.P  taken the pleas regarding point of limitation. On this point it is our considered view that when the O. P  refused to issue N.O.C against the above vehicle in the year of 2015 ,  Subsequently the petitioner has  filed the present  dispute in the year of 2015 . As such the dispute is within the period of limitation as per section 24(A) of C.P.Act 1986. We also placed  reliance  in the observation of U.P State commission,2004(2)CLD-568,wherein it is held that :

“In case of any genuine  claim the limitation is a technical point .”

The above analysis form our side, it clearly goes to establish that the O.P has committed  patent deficiency of service as well  as unfair trade practice in not issuing N.O.C  in favour of the petitioner when the loan account has already been  closed . As such to meet the ends of justice we allow the dispute.

The dispute is allowed against the O.P . The O.P  is directed to issue N.O.C within 7 days after receipt of the order, failing which  the O.P  is liable to pay compensation  of  Rs.20,000/- and the

petitioner is at liberty  recover  the compensation amount as per law prescribed under  C.P.Act.  No cost.

            This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 13 th day of October ,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.