Date of filing:-05/04/2018.
Date of Order:-01/05/2019.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 34 of 2018.
Raman Ranjan Padhan, S/o:- Late Kashinath Padhan, aged about 26(twenty six) years, R/o/vill:- Sidhira, P.o:- Kalangapali, P.s:-Melchamunda, Dist-Bargarh
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
Branch Manager, D.C.B.Bank, Bargarh Branch, Gurudwara Chowk, Bargarh, Po/P.s/Dist-Bargarh ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri RK.Satapathy, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party:- Sri A.K.Sahoo, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.01/05/2019. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Facts of the case,
The case of the Complainant is that, his father namely Kashinath Padhan had availed a Tractor Loan from the Opposite Party Bank for an amount of Rs.4,14,000/-(Rupees four lakh fourteen thousand)only on Dt.25.10.2016 vide his Loan A/C No-10353700010380 and time to time has debited an amount of Rs.2,921/-(Rupees two thousand nine hundred twenty one)only Rs.46,000/-(Rupees forty six thousand)only on Dt.01.12.2016, Dt.02.12.2016 respectively and in this way has debited an amount of Rs.4,62,921/-(Rupees four lakh sixty two thousand nine hundred twenty one)only from the said account of Kashinath Padhan and also his case is that in such transaction between his father and the Opposite Party his father has debited some amount for the purpose of Insurance and Registration of the said Tractor and also in furtherance to his allegation is that prior to the finance by the Opposite Party as he has got business term with the dealer of the Tractor namely Shyamala Agency, has delivered the said tractor to the father of the Complainant on Dt.16 .09.2016.
Further as per the Complainant the said vehicle was registered on Dt.22.11.2016 and on the next date i.e. on Dt. 23.11.2016 the father of the Complainant has died but by that time the same vehicle was not insured though earlier to that premium amount for insuring the same was transferred to the Opposite Party. So to patch up his lacuna later on the Opposite Party has insured the same vehicle in the name of the Complainant showing the deceased father of the Complainant namely Kashinath Padhan as nominee which is as per him amounts to deficiencies of service resulting to which the Complainant has sustained loss of an amount of Rs.4,56,717/-(Rupees four lakh fifty six thousand seven hundred seventeen)only against the insurance claim which he did not get due to the default of the Opposite Party in insuring the vehicle in the name of the registered owner late Kashinath Padhan but at the same time has claimed the demand of the Opposite Party in repayment of the loan amount amounting to Rs.5,77,423/-(Rupees five lakh seventy seven thousand four hundred twenty three)only as illegal as such has filed this case with an allegation of deficiencies of service by the Opposite Party with a claim of Rs.6,01,329/-(Rupees six lakh one thousand three hundred twenty nine)only in respective heads as:-
Insurance (personal) amount Rs.4,56,717/-
Interest @ 18% P.A. w.e.f Dt.23.11.2016 to Dt.23.03.2018, Rs. 1,09.612/-
Harassment & mental agony Rs.25,000/-
Litigation expenses Rs.10,000/-
And in support of his case the Complainant has relied on some following documents:-
A/C Statement Dt.13.01.2017.
Vehicle Challan Receipt No.2098 Dt.16.09.2016.
Copy of R.C.Book of the Vehicle No. OD-17-H-4735.
Death Certificate of Kashinath Padhan.
Member Certificate of Insurance Dt06.12.2016.
A/C statement Dt.13.02.2018.
Having gone through the complaint the documents accompanied with it and on hearing the learned counsel for him the case was admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Party and in response to the same the authorized person of the same appeared and filed his version.
The averments made by the Opposite Party in it’s version is a denial one with the additional averments made in it that the father of the Complainant approached the Opposite Party for a loan from him to purchase a tractor by it’s make and Model SONALIKA DI 42RX for an amount of Rs.4,60,000/-(Rupees four lakh sixty thousand)only and on it’s approval the father of the Complainant late Kashinath Padhan executed the loan hypothecation agreement and the amount was transferred to his Loan Account vide No-10353700010380 and also has contended that the Complainant being a co-applicant agreed to undertake to repay the entire loan with the condition envisaged therein in the terms and condition of the agreement.
In furtherance to his averments the Opposite Party has also challenged the maintainability of the case in the present form in the forum as some material facts have been suppressed by the Complainant and there is no case of deficiencies in service on his part and as such has claimed to dismiss the case. And in it’s support he has relied on a single document, i.e the loan cum guarantee agreement(one sheet) and the application form for loan duely signed by Kashinath Padhan and the Complainant (Co-applicant).
And the respective Advocates of the Parties vehemently argued and placed their points of arguments strongly with respect to their case.
On perusal of the complaint it’s accompanied documents and the written version and it’s accompanied document and on hearing the vehement argument advanced by the counsels of the respective parties the following issues have come up for proper adjudication of the case.
Whether the case in it’s present form is maintainable and whether there is any deficiencies in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Party ?
Whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief as has been sought for ?
While dealing with the question of the maintainability of the case in the Forum in it’s present form, delving deep in to the entire case record and keeping in view the oral submission of the respective party it is observed that it is an admitted fact that the father of the Complainant namely Kashinath Padhan has incurred a loan from the Opposite Party Bank it is also revealed from the materials available in the record that both the Complainant and his father Late Kashinanth Padhan has undertaken in the written agreement by signing the same to repay the loan with the terms and condition envisaged therein and the loan amount has been disbursed in favor of the Complainant’s father on Dt.25.10.2016 for an amount of Rs.4,14,000/-(Rupees four lakh fourteen thousand)only and subsequently there after the dispute has arose wherein the Complainant has alleged against the Opposite Party to have committed deficiencies in rendering him service. So it is clear from the aforesaid facts and circumstances that there is some genuine dispute between the parties for which the case has been filed for it’s redressal.
But while dealing with the issue with regard to the question as to whether there is deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant on the part of the Opposite Party, in this context the learned Advocate for the Complainant with much confident and strength placed his argument before us contending the facts that the loan was sanctioned in the name of the father of the Complainant vide Loan Account No.10353700010380 and accordingly the Opposite Party has debited funds from his said loan account in different dates for different amount i.e. on Dt.01.12.2016 for an amount of Rs.2,921/-(Rupees two thousand nine hundred twenty one)only on Dt.02.12.2016 for an amount of Rs.46,000/-(Rupees forty six thousand)only and in this way has debited an amount of Rs.4,62,921/-(Rupees four lakh sixty two thousand nine hundred twenty one)only in total from his said loan account and also pressed that such debited amount includes the insurance amount and the expenses for Registration of the said Vehicle and his points of arguments is that though the Opposite Party has debited the amounts for the said purpose but has not insured the Vehicle in time though the Vehicle was delivered to the father of the Complainant on Dt.16.09.2016, having such business practice with the dealer of the vehicle namely one Shyamala Agencies of Bargarh and subsequently thereafter the said Vehicle was registered in the name of the father of the Complainant on Dt.22.11.2016 but the same was not insured and subsequently thereafter the said Kashinath Padhan died on Dt.23.11.2016 so to patch up the matter has insured the same in the name of the Complainant showing his father as the nominee for which he has been debarred from getting benefit of insurance claim, which in his view is deficiencies in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Party.
On the contrary the learned counsel for the Opposite Party also vehemently placed his arguments before the Forum denying the contention of the counsel for the Complainant and the case of the Complainant contending that the Complainant is a co-applicant of the said loan and the loan amount was sanctioned and disbursed with the Complainant and his father and both have jointly agreed to repay the loan amount by signing the agreement and in the loan application being a co-applicant on Dt.25.10.2016 and thereafter the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant and his father and also contended further that as co-applicant of the loan the present Complainant has insured him as master policy holder much prior to the death of his father and as such claimed not to have committed any sort of deficiencies in rendering service to them as such is not liable for any action there under.
Having gone through the complaint the accompanied documents to the effect and version of the Opposite Party and his supporting documents and on hearing the arguments placed by the learned counsels of the respective Parties. And on close scrutiny of all the materials placed before us it came to our notice that the claim of the Complainant that the Vehicle was delivered to the father of the Complainant on Dt.16.09.2016 at the instance of the Opposite Party is not established in any circumstances with any cogent reason in as much as having no documentary support to that effect in furtherance to the same it can not be established in any circumstances in the absence of the dealer concern namely Shyamala Agencies Bargarh, and the same is with regard to the alleged commencement of the Insurance Policy also as the same has also not been proved either way more so the claim of the Opposite Party regarding the same to have been commenced at the instance of the Complainant much prior to the death of the father of the Complainant which is quite contradictory to the document available with us in the record so the matter cannot be ascertained specially in the absence of the Insurance agency in the case, further the submission of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant is bound by the terms and condition when he has signed the contract documents, and in that case he cannot raise any allegation or challenge the same at a belated stage regarding the said loan and in support of his arguments has relied on a decision of the Honorable Apex Court of the country reported in 1996 4 SCC 704 .
In view of such facts and circumstances of the case in hand in our view, the case involves a lot of question of Law and facts which needs an elaborate examination of Documentary evidence and oral evidence of some necessary party who have not been made party in this case. As such we are of the view that the case cannot be adjudicated in the present Forum in it’s present form as such is not Maintainable. As such our view is expressed against the Complainant.
Secondly while dealing with the question as to whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief as has sought for, in this regard as we have already discussed the case elaborately and have expressed our view against the Complainant now it is obvious upon us to express our view accordingly against him and we are of the view to relegate the case to the proper Forum of Law wherein the matter can be reinitiated hence the Complainant is at liberty to knock the door of the proper Forum of law.
O R D E R
As such the order is pronounced in the open Forum in the result the Complaint is dismissed being devoid of merit and for no cause of action under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the Complainant is at liberty to agitate the same in the proper Forum of Law and accordingly the same is disposed off to-day i.e. on 01.05.2019.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree,
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W)
Upload by
Sri Dusmanta Padhan,
Office Assistant (D.M.A.)
