Orissa

Jharsuguda

CC/82/2014

Tarabati Nayak W/O-Late Chudamani Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

BM State Banck Of India Samasingha Branch - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.Meher

03 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

                                        

CONSUMER  COMPLAINT  CASE NO. 82 OF 2014

 

Tarabati Nayak ( 66 Yrs.),

W/O: Late Chudamani Nayak,

At/PO: Kenadhipa, PS: Kuchinda

Dist-.Sambalpur, Odisha…………………………………………..……………. Complainant.

     

                                           Versus 

 

1. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

At: Samasingha Branch,PS: Kolabira,

Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha…

 

2. Branch Manager,

SBI Life Super Suraksha,

Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha……………......................................................... Opp. Parties.

 

Counsel for the Parties:-

 

For the Complainant                                      Shri T.K.Nanda, Adv. & Associates.

For the OPP.Party No.1                                Shri K.C.Agrawal,Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Party No.2                                Shri S.K.Das,Adv.

 

Date of Order: 03.06.2015

                                                           

                                                              Present

 

                                            1. Shri S.L. Behera, President.

                                            2. Shri S.K. Ojha, Member.

                                           

                                           

Shri S.L. Behera, President: -  This is a complaint made by the complainant against O.P.No.1 SBI, Samasingha Branch alleging deficiency in service wherein wrong calculation in the statement of account and charge sought illegally are made along with threatening the seized the finance vehicle in default of illegal claim. The complainant along with her deceased son namely Rohit Kumar Patel obtained a loan under hypothecation purchase scheme in order to purchase a tractor, trolley and accessories.  Accordingly it is alleged by the complainant that the tractor bearing Regn. No. OR-15M-0038 and trolley bearing Regn. No.OR-15M-0039 was purchase being financed by the OI.P.No.1 Bank under executing an agreement a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- only was financed to be repaid in 18 nos. of half yearly

 

-EMIs..  The complainant claims that she was paying the EMIs. Regularly but disputed the statement of account issued on dtd. 22.01.2015. According to the complainant amounts charge under different charges despite regular payment is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.1.  The complainant also alleging deficiency in service against the O.P.No.2 SBI Life super Suraksha, Jharsuguda.  It is alleged that at the time of finance the O.P.No.1 convince the late Rohit kumar Nayak to insured loan amount under SBI Life Super Suraksha for a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- vide policy No. 83GTL /13136 on dtd. 18.10.2007. And after the death of the late Rohit Kumar Nayak on dtd. 14.12.2011 the O.P.No.2 paid only Rs.2,69,960/- only to the O.P.No.1 instead of Rs.4,30,000/- only as insured amount as per the term and condition of the policy.  Alleging deficiency in service against both the O.Ps the complainant prays this forum for a direction to the O.Ps to pay the outstanding insured amount of Rs.1,60,040/- only with interest along with compensatory cost of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony. 

 

            Being notice the O.Ps appeared through their counsel and filed their written versions respectively.  The O.P.No.1 denying all the allegations made by the complainant except the factum of finance amount stated by her.  It is admitted by the O.P.No.1 that an agricultural term loan amount was sanctioned for Rs. 4,38,000/- only to Smt. Tarabati Nayak and Rohit Kumar Nayak including insurance premium amount of Rs.8,000/- only and loan insured for Rs.4,30,000/- only.  It is also not disputed by the O.P.No.1 that after the death of Rohit Kumar Nayak , the O.P.No.1 has receive an amount of Rs.2,69,960/-  and Rs.34,690/- on dtd. 30.04.2012 and dtd.18.12.2014 from SBI Life claim which has been credited to the loan account of complainant.  The O.P.No.1 claim an outstanding due of Rs.3,89,754/- only towards installment due including interest as per account statement dtd. 14.05.2015.  Accordingly the O.P No.1 claims for dismissal of the complaint due to non-maintainability of the complaint and the matter in dispute is to be solved in the Civil Court.

 

            The O.P.No.2 SBI Life Super Suraksha has denied all the allegation made by the complainant in her complaint.  It is submitted by the O.P.No.2 that the cause of action arose on dtd. 03.05.2012 when the payment was made to the Master Police Holder and the complainant filed this case before this forum in the month of October,2014 i.e. after a period of 2 years, hence this complaint is barred by limitations and it may be liable to be dismissed.  It is also submitted by the O.P.No.2 that after the death of one of the loanee namely Rohit Kumar Nayak as per term and condition of the master policy i.e. Rs.3,04,017/- only ( Rs.2,69,327 + Rs.34,690/-) only has already been paid to the Master Policy Holder i.e. O.P.No.1. Hence there is no any deficiency in service on their part with citing various decisions relating to non-maintainability of the complainant the O.P.No.2 sought for its rejection.    

 

            Heard from both the parties. Perused the complaint petition, written version filed by the parties and documents available on record.  It is not disputed that the complainant has availed finance facilities to purchase tractor, trolley and accessories from the O.P.No.1 wherein as per the agreement made between the parties the finance amount was to be repaid within a specified term as per EMIs fixed in the agreement.  In this complaint the complainant claimed to have paid the amount agreed by her but the O.P.No.1 claim the complainant is a defaulter who is having lakhs of rupees outstanding.  The O.P.No.2 also

 

claims that they have already paid the insurance amount to the master policy holder i.e. O.P.No.1.  What appears to us, after going through the entire evidence on record, this case is relating to loan matter also dispute arises in accounting the amount in statement of account and nonpayment of installment dues along with interest charges by the complainant. 

 

            We do not considered to go into deep into the accounting procedure especially when dispute in account has been arose.

           

            In view of above observation the complaint petition is dismiss without any costs with a liberty to the complainant to seek her redressal if any before the Civil Court having jurisdiction to entertain the same.

 

Accordingly the case is disposed of.

 

Order pronounced in the open court today on this the 03^rd   day of June 2015, copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per Rule.

 

                                                I Agree,                                        

 

 

                                     

                                       S. K. Ojha, Member                                                              S.L.Behera,President       

 

                                                                                  Dictated and corrected by me.

 

                                                                                      S. L. Behera, President.