Orissa

Jajapur

CC/15/2016

Suchismita Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

D.K.Nath

30 Apr 2018

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 30th day of April,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No.15 of 2016

Suchismita Sahoo    , W/O Bharmarbar Sahoo    

Vill. Ramachandrapur  , P.O. Barapada  

Via/P.S.  Binjharpur ,

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

                                                  (Versus)

1.Bank of India ,At/P.O. Jajpur Town, Dt.jajpur

2. Bank of India,At/P.O. Kandia ,Dt.Kendrapada

                                                                                                                    ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                    

For the Complainant:                       Sri D.K.Nath, Sri B.N.Panda, Advocates .

For the Opp.Parties :                         Sri  Jagannath Panigrahi, Advocate.

                                                                                                     Date of order:   30.04.2018.

MISS  SMITA  RAY , LADY  MEMBER .

Deficiency in banking service is the grievance of the petitioner .

            The case as per complaint   petition as stated by the  petitioner is that she is a house wife  and for maintaining  her  lively hood purchased a vehicle under Debt Weaver Agriculture Scheme with  the financial assistance of the O.Ps amounting to Rs. 4,90,000/- . The petitioner  has  admitted  that she is a defaulter who has  not paid the installment dues in time.  It is stated by the petitioner that the  bank authority without any intimation  seized the loaded  vehicle on road without giving  any seizure list .  It is pertinent to mention here that  as per the Debt Weaver Agriculture  Scheme  the bank  settled  the matter in OTS and  the petitioner is required to pay     finally    Rs. 2,60,000/-  but  the  petitioner approached  to allow  some time to pay the amount but the  bank did not   allow any time . The petitioner also has challenged  such arbitrary   action of the O.Ps by  seizing  the vehicle without issuance of  any prior notice or any intimation. Accordingly the petitioner  filed this  present dispute with the prayer to direct the o.ps to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner bearing Regd. No. OR-04-8093     after receiving Rs. 50,000/-.  and also accept the OTS proposal .

            The O.Ps appeared through their learned advocate  subsequently filed their written version taking following stands :-

1the petitioner has no loco-standee to  file this  dispute against the O.Ps  . This forum has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the above dispute  because the cause of action does not arise within the  territorial  jurisdiction of  this forum .  It is a fact   that the petitioner  is a service holder and  she applied for a Tractor loan to O.P.no..2  for business purpose . The O.P.no.2 sanctioned the said Tractor loan amounting to Rs.4,90,000/-  on dt. 09.05.12  in favour of the petitioner . But the petitioner did not repay the   installment  of the said loan amount  regularly for which the said loan account has been defaulted , it is also admitted by the  petitioner in the complaint petition.  Accordingly the said loan account became NPA. The petitioner will repay the total outstanding amount  of Rs5,10,794.09 /-  till date 28.09.15 with  interest calculated  till the date of payment . As per law the financer bank is the real and true owner of the vehicle during the period of hypothecation agreement .That due to  default of payment of loan amount by the petitioner, the O.P.no.2 has issued  notice to the petitioner   regularly for repayment the loan amount     but the petitioner did not listen to the same. The petitioner also has filed a dispute vide  P.L.A  case  no.823/15 District Legal Service Authority ,  kenduapada  who  directed the petitioner to present before the Lok Adalat on 12. 12.15 in the premises of the civil court for repayment of said amount but the petitioner did not come and avoided to pay  said amount .  So as per law the bank has  seized  the vehicle  on 17.02.16 .  The petitioner has  suppressed the real fact and she has not come to this fora with clean hands   . Hence in the above noted circumstances the C.C.Case  is liable to be dismissed  with cost.

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

It is undisputed fact that the petitioner purchased a Tractor taking financial l assistance from  the O.Ps .

2. it is also undisputed fact on dt. 17.02.16  the vehicle has been seized by the O.P   and the petitioner  has alleged that before seizure of the vehicle the O.Ps  did not give  any prior intimation to the petitioner  but on the other hand the petitioner  himself has admitted in her complaint petition that she is a chronic defaulter  for repaying the said loan outstanding dues .Hence it is our considered view that there is no  deficiency  of service on the part of the O.Ps  in  seizing  the financed vehicle since  the petitioner himself admitted that she is a chronic defaulter.

O R D E R

Hence the C.C. Case is dismissed.

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th  day of  April,2018. under my hand and seal of the Forum.