Orissa

Dhenkanal

CC/109/2021

Ramesh Chandra Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bhuban Branch - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DHENKANAL

                                        C.C.Case No. 109 of 2021

 Ramesh Chandra Behera, aged about 43 years,

S/o  Dharanidhar Behera, At: Bhuban College Road,

PO/PS: Bhuban,  Dist: Dhenkanal                                                  ….......Petitioner

                                                Versus

 

Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, Bhuban Branch,

At/Po:/PS: Bhuban, Dist: Dhenkanal                                              ........Opp. Party

 

 

 Present: Sri Saroj Kumar Sahoo, President

            Miss Sasimta Rath,  Member

Counsel: For the complainant:    Sri Naba Kishore Guru & Associates

             For the Opp. Party  :        Sri Ajit Kumar Pattnaik & Associates

             

Date of hearing argument:   13.6.2023

Date of order:    25.7.2023

                                                JUDGMENT

Miss Sasmita Rath, Member

            The complainant has filed the present case U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opp.  Party .

                 1)Very brief fact of the case of the complainant stated are that  he has a Cash Credit Account bearing No.36259239118 maintained in the S.B.I Bhuban Branch-O.P.Bank  and also availed a Cash Credit loan of Rs. 95,968.50 on 16.3.2017 in order to earn his livelihood.  It is stated further that after availing the C.C.Loan the transaction was running well  but due to Pandemic  Covid-19 the complainant was unable to run the transactions and repayment thereon.  The Opp. Party called the petitioner before four days of 9.7.2021 and gave a proposal for one time settlement of the C.C.Loan and after due discussion the complainant agreed to the proposal of the O.P and a sum of Rs. 55,000/- was fixed for payment by the petitioner as one time settlement.  Accordingly on 9.7.2021 the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 55,000/- with the O.P to close the Cash Credit loan.  It is the case of the complainant that after deposit of the amount towards one time settlement, he requested the O.P.Bank to issue N.O.C and to return his two L.I.C Bonds bearing Policy No. 599227099 and 599227031 which were pledged with the O.P. Bank at the time of availing C.C.Loan.  The O.P Bank told the petitioner to come after two days  to receive the above documents.  On 11.7.2021 again the petitioner approached the O.P who deferred the date again and again and did not issue N.O.C  and also did not return the L.I.C Policy bond despite several approaches and lastly on 10.11.2021 the O.P denied which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  Therefore, the complainant has come up before this Commission seeking for a direction to the O.P. Bank to  issue N.O.C   and to return the L.I.C. Bonds.  Besides, the complainant claims  compensation and  cost of the litigation of Rs. 60,000/-.

               2)The Opp. Party appeared through his Advocate  and       filed written version          beyond the statutory period as provided under the C.P.Act, 2019  for which it was not accepted  vide order dated 15.11.2022.

             3)  Now the only issue before us to be determined as to whether the Opp. Party is in deficiency of service by not settling the loan amount under O.T.S scheme despite payment of a sum of Rs. 55,000/- by the petitioner at a time?

             4) The only allegation of the complainant is that the O.P.Bank called the complainant and asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 55,000/- for one time settlement of the loan account. Accordingly, the complainant on the instruction of the  O.P. paid the amount on  9.7.21 for settlement of the account, but the O.P did not acted upon to settle the loan dues under O.T.S.Scheme.   The complainant has availed a C.C.Loan of Rs. 95,968.50 on 16.3.2017.   The complainant in support of his stands  has filed  deposit slip Dt. 9.7.2021 showing payment of Rs. 55,000/-.   The complainant also filed evidence in shape of affidavit.  On the other hand the O.P  in his written note argument submitted that   the complainant has availed a Cash Credit loan  for Rs. 95,968.50 on 16.3.2017.  and also stated that the Opp. Party has never called the petitioner nor gave any proposal for one time settlement of C.C loan.  Without any letter in this respect from the side of O.P,  the allegations of the complainant are false and denied.  It is the duty of the complainant to clear up the entire loan dues with interest after which the Bank will provide the NOC along with LIC Bonds.  The Bank has never issued any letter to settle the loan dues within Rs. 55,000/- nor gave any assurance to the complainant to settle  the account under O.T.S scheme. Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.

5)        On the above rival contentions of the respective parties now it is to be seen that whether there was any proposal for settlement of account under O.T.S or not.  The  complainant in support of his case has filed  the deposit slip of Rs. 55,000/- and on the basis of that payment the complainant argued before us that there was no such urgency to deposit a substantial amount at a time and as per the oral discussion  between the complainant and the O.P the amount was paid. Further it is pleaded on behalf of the complainant that he applied for certain information relating to the loan dues availed by him  but the O.P. did not provide such information. Further  the Commission  also  called for a report on the loan dues to the O.P and  directed the O.P to cause production of  the same, but the O.P did not responded to the letter of this Commission. Therefore, adverse information is to be drawn.  In support of the submissions, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner  relied on a decision of the  Hon’ble Apex Court in case of  Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar vr. Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors   reported in 1968 AIR page 1413. The complainant also adduced evidence in shape of affidavit.  On the other hand  the O.P Bank neither produced any documents relating to the Loan transaction and any counter affidavit in support of their case. Therefore, we have no other option except to believe the contentions of the complainant. Therefore, we are of the view that there was a discussion for settlement of the loan account under O.T.S Scheme and the complainant accordingly paid the  amount of Rs. 55,000/-.  Hence the order.

                                                                                ORDER

 

The complaint petition is allowed in the light of the observations made in preceding paragraphs . The O.P. is directed to supply the N.O.C. in favour of the petitioner in respect of CC Loan vide No – 36259239118 and return the LIC bonds to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the O.P. shall be liable to pay compensation of Rs. 100/- (One Hundred ) for each day of delay in complying this order. In the peculiar facts and circumstances parties are left to bear their own cost.

 

(Sri Saroj Kumar Sahoo)(Miss Sasmita Rath)