Orissa

Jajapur

CC/91/2017

Smt.Ranjita Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.M,Odisha Gramya Bank,Kabatabandha Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Niranjan Parida

25 Sep 2019

ORDER

IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                                                                   

                                            Dated the 25th day of September,2019.

                                                      C.C.Case No.91 of 2017

Smt. Ranjita Das, W/O Batula Das 

 Vill.Rekhideipur ,P.S. Jenapur

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

            (Versus)

1.B. Manager, Odisha Gramya Bank , Kabatbandha  branch

At/P.O.Kabatbandha , Via.Jenapur ,Dt.Jajpur.

    

2.  Dist. Deputy  Director Agriculture  Officer,  Jajpur ,

    At/P.O/ Dist.jajpur.                                                                                              ………………O.Ps                                           

                                                                                                               

For the Complainant:                                      Sri N.Parida, Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties : No.1                             Sri G.C.Panda, Miss B.R.Rout, Advocates.

For the Opp.Parties No.2                                Self

                                                                                                     Date of order:   25.09.2019.

SHRI   JIBAN  BALLAV  DAS,  PRESIDENT  .  

The petitioner has filed this consumer case against the O.Ps describing her grievance as follows.

According to her in the year 2011 she applied to Agriculture Deptt. for sanction of loan of Rs.6,47,000/-  and the Kalinga Gramya Bank ,Kabatbandha branch was instructed by the Agriculture Deptt to sanction the loan and deposited the cash in the bank account. Thereafter on 01.05.2011 the petitioner deposited Rs.1,28,000/- as promoter and deposited all her documents  in the bank . In the result the  bank provided with a Tractor and trolley but other equipments relating to Agricultural farming was not provided .Repeated approach  of the petitioner  since 2011 did not bear fruit. The petitioner claimed to be an illiterate lady who so far as not  received  Rs.2,13,510/-  towards subsidy . The petitioner  ascertained that she has repaid more than  one lakh . The O.p banker repeatedly issued notice to the petitioner claiming 10,13,500/- . The petitioner approach  to the branch manager was also not successful  as the B.M refused to come to the rescue to the petitioner . The  petitioner claimed that she is an illiterate  lady and her husband is a laborer . She was deprived of  to get  the subsidy and all other beneficial   programme  of the Govt.  Due to this bank loan she has prayed to punish the bankers for the agriculture equipments from the O.ps amounting to Rs,2,13,510/-  including other reliefs . Hence this case of the petitioner .

            The O.P.no.1,Kalinga Gramya Bank ,Kabatbandha branch appeared through their advocate and filed the written version denying the maintainability  of this case submitted that the petitioner earlier filed  C.C.Case  No.35/16 which was dismissed on 04.12.17  for default of the petitioner . So for the same cause of action  the present case is not maintainable . According to O.P.no.1 the petitioner availed the agriculture loan for the purpose of the Tractor and her prayer  for the subsidy  was sanctioned with the terms and conditions of the rules . The petitioner also executed the loan agreement , for which the bank paid Rs.6,47,000/- to the petitioner . The petitioner also received the Tractor from the supplier . The petitioner’s  contention that she has not received the accessories implements  along with tractor  is not believable nor is  acceptable , so the matter is in between the petitioner and the supplier  in which the O.P.no.1 is not involved . Since the petitioner used to  give  signed   documents she can  not  be said to be illiterate . The petitioner is only deposited Rs.50,000/- and not one lakh . Due to default of the petitioner her laon became NPA from 31.03.15. The O.P.no.1 admitted that Rs. 1,08,190/- was adjusted the loan amount towards the fixed deposit of the petitioner . Thereafter Rs.9,05,310/- is outstanding to the petitioner till 21.08.15 . The claim of the petitioner is barred by law  of limitation and the petitioner to suppress her own latches  filed one case  after another  to harass the O.P . There is no merit  of  the case of  petitioner . The petitioner being a defaulter since 13.03.12 her plea is not to be taken into consideration and the case should be dismissed with cost.

            The O.P.no.2 vide his office letter No.2855 dt. 12.12.2018 filed the procedure  of Guide line for establishment of Agro Service Center.

            The O.P Banker also filed voluminous documents showing that the petitioner is a defaulter of Rs.9,05,390/-  as on 30.03.15 . Thereafter the petitioner filed C.C.Case No. 35/16  which was dismissed on 04.12.16 for default of the petitioner. Again the petitioner filed the present case No.91/17 .

            Demand notice to the petitioner borrower Under sub- section(2) of section-13 of the Surfaces  Act-2002  dt. 03.09.15  was sent to the petitioner demanding repayment of the outstanding loan of Rs.9,62,215/- as on 31.05.2011 . We also went through the bunch of documents filed by the O.Ps which led to us believe that the petitioner is a defaulter and has taken the help of litigation to avoid payment of bank dues as a borrower and her loan account became  NPA in the mean time .

On the date of hearing we heard the argument from both the sides. Perused the pleadings and documents available on record.

As regards payment of subsidy the presumption is that the bank is in  no way responsible for the accessories and other tools and appliances , as because it was an   offer     between the petitioner and supplier of the Tractor and accessories . So the petitioner was duty bound and responsibilities  lies with her to take   offer of  loan amount as well as to get the agriculture equipments, tools and other appliances . She can not blame this  for the O.P under any circumstances. So far as the claim of subsidy is concerned , considering the huse amount of loan which has become NPA in the mean time the petitioner would do well to first repay the huse loan amount  and the O.P shall take care of the subsidy amount at that time.          

            Looking towards the relief sought in the application we are of the unanimous opinion that the O.Ps  are not at fault at any point of time  and there is no convincing , cogent,  believable ground to accept the prayer of the petitioner who has defaulted  for  payment of more than 10 lakh  to the O.P.no.1.. Therefore, we are of  unanimous opinion that the case of the petitioner which was earlier dismissed  for default  need  to be dismissed on merit .

Hence this Order

            The case of the petitioner  is dismissed on contest  against the O.Ps. No cost.

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25th  day of  September ,2019. under my hand and seal of the Forum.