Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/186/2022

Sunil Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Sector-1/B - Opp.Party(s)

Srishtidhar Singh

27 Mar 2024

ORDER

                District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-03-11-2022

Date of final hearing-27-03-2024

 Date of Order-27-03-2024

Case No. 186/2022

Sunil Prasad S/o Nivaran Mahto

 R/o Ranipokhar, Tola- Ramdih, P.O.- Baidhmara,

 P.S.- Harla, Sector-9, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand 827009 

                                      Vrs.

1. Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank,

Sector-1/B, B.S.City, Bokaro, Jharkhand, 827001

2. Indian Overseas Bank, Zonal Branch Manager,

Zonal Office Ranchi, Jharkhand

Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-:Order:-

1. Complainant’s case in brief is that he obtained loan from IOB (Indian Oversees Bank) Sector-9 , B.S.City, Bokaro and purchased a tractor. Further case is that complainant started to repay the loan in the account No. 1839031110001 and paid Rs. 3,20,000/- in instalments. Further case is that meanwhile tractor met with an accident but O.P. has not helped in settlement of the claim and during that very period complainant received legal notice for repayment of loan and also informed about issuance of warrant from the office of the Certificate Officer. When complainant contacted the O.P. Bank then he was informed that Rs. 2,50,000/- is due against him and on its payment No Objection Certificate will be issued, meanwhile for want of NOC all papers like Road Tax, Insurance etc. expired,  lastly complainant gave legal notice dt. 07.02.2019 to the O.P. having no impact, hence this case has been filed with prayer to direct the O.Ps. to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest as compensation, Rs. 30,000/- litigation cost.
2. O.P. has filed W.S. mentioning therein that it is true that complainant obtained loan from the O.P. but he has not come before this Commission with clean hands. Further reply is that term loan of Rs. 4,77,000/- was sanctioned on 13.06.2011 vide loan account No. 311100013 which was to be paid by the complainant as per terms and conditions of the said loan but complainant was never regular in making payment of monthly instalments causing the account NPA on 30.09.2013, resultantly Certificate Case No. 05/2014-15 has been filed in the month of Sept. 2014 against the complainant. Still there is due of Rs. 4,56,364/- against the complainant which has not been paid. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the case.
3. Point for determination is whether complainant is entitled to get any relief or not?
4. Complainant has examined himself as witness No. 1 by filing evidence on affidavit but during cross- examination he states that on 15.09.2014 notice was served on him by the bank. He admits about filing of the Certificate Case by the Bank against him. Further he admits that notice was received for Rs. 4,66,000/- and still Certificate Case is pending.
5. It appears that taking of loan by the complainant from the O.P. is admitted fact. Further admitted fact is that there was dues of the bank against the complainant in respect to said loan account. Another admitted fact is that complainant has defaulted in payment of instalment of the loan. Further admitted fact is that Certificate Case was filed against the complainant for realization of dues of Rs. 4,66,583/-.
6. In light of above admitted facts it is very much clear that complainant is not regular in payment of loan instalments. However, from perusal of the photo copy of the certified copy of the Certificate Case No. 05/2014-15 it appears that complainant has deposited some amount on different dates in the bank but details about it has not been filed for perusal. It is also appearing that on 09.01.2024 on the basis of compromise loan amount has been deposited by the complainant accordingly as per section 53(2) Public Demands Recovery Act, the proceeding of the case has been dropped. However, before this Commission there is no any compromise petition to see the terms and conditions of the parties. In this way it is very much clear that whatever grievance may be it has been settled in the Certificate Case proceeding. Hence we are of the view that the complainant has not proved any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the O.Ps. hence case is being dismissed with cost.

 

 (J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

 

 

                                                                                     

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

•