SRI NAYANANANDA DASH,MEMBER:-
The present case bearing No.C.C.36/15 is about allegation of deficiency of service on the part of State Bank aof India,Chandol branch in Kendrapara district, being the Opposite Party which financed a tractor along with trolley to Sri Jitendra Kumar Mishra,aged 37 years,S/o:- Sri Rajkishore Mishra of Vill:-Kesharpur,Po:-Danpur of Kendrapara district and who is the complainant by threatening to take possession of the vehicle.
2. Brief facts of the case is that the complainant Sri Jitendra Kumar Mishra approached the OP-Bank in the year 2009 to provide financial assistance for purchase of a tractor for the cultivation of his land. The OP-Bank financed Rs.5.00 lakhs and the tractor bearing Regd. No.OR-04K-2297 having Engine No.S33756970 and Chasis No.514264 was purchased on dt.23.11.2009 along with trolley. That, the repayment period of loan was fixed as 5 years with rate of interest being as 10.75 per cent per annum with a monthly installment of Rs.11,113/- per month. So, far the complainant had paid Rs.5,93,499/- towards repayment of the said loan but the OP-Bank is threatening to take possession of the vehicle and issued a demand notice on dt.02.05.15 to the complainant to pay Rs.1,57,879/-,failing which the vehicle would be seized. The complainant also states that the OP-Bank is demanding more than their entitlement and also mentions about non-receipt of subsidy in the said loan. Hence, this case is filed with a request to file the entire loan documents by the Opp. Party and not to demand more than the entitlement and not to take possession of the vehicle till disposal of the case. It is pertinent to note that the Forum had passed an Interim order on dt.18.05.15 to the Op-Bank not to seize the vehicle and instructed the complainant to deposit Rs.15,000/- with the Opp.Party.
3. The Opp. Party-Bank on the other hand has contested the case and has refuted the allegations made by the complainant. The OP-Bank has questioned the maintainability of the case on the ground that the tractor was not used for agricultural purpose but for commercial purpose. The OP-Bank also states that the complainant was a businessman having a coal depot and had availed a loan from Cuttack Gramya Bank,Chandol. The OP-Bank further states that although the complainant was enjoying loan from Cuttack Gramya Bank,Chandol from 2007, he had submitted false affidavit of not having any loan with any bank in his application for loan with SBI. Further on non-repayment of loan to CGB, the CGB had initiated proceedings against the complainant under SAARFFSI Act which states about the behavior of the complainant. The OP-Bank has also refuted the allegation of wrong calculation of interest.
4. On perusal of complaint and written statements of both the complainant and the OP-Bank and also different documents produced before the Forum on the point of maintainability of the dispute as raised by the OP-Bank and on a perusal of letter of agreement executed between the parties on Clause No.12 a(i) and (1) clearly shows that the vehicle was/is used for ‘commercial’ purpose which excludes from the provisions of C.P.Act,1986 as complainant is a ‘consumer’. It is very much clear that on the request of the complainant, the OP-Bank sanctioned a loan for Rs.5.00 lakhs for the purpose of a tractor on dtd.30.10.2009. The said tractor loan carried a rate of interest of 10.75 per cent per annum and the repayment period being 5 years and the monthly repayment was fixed as Rs.11,117/- per month. The complainant went on repaying the installments regularly in the initial months but started defaulting for which an amount of Rs.1,47,044/- remains overdue. Meanwhile 5 years have passed since the availing of the loan and if the monthly installments would have been paid, as per agreed terms of sanction, the loan account would have been closed by now which means that the installments have not been paid regularly and there have been default in repayment of the loan. The OP-Bank has to take recovery measures in the event of loan account becoming NPA. If the complainant has faced some problems for which he has been unable to repay the loan, he should have brought those before the Bank and should have asked for some more time for repayment. But simply wanting that bank should not take any action against the complainant even if the loan account turns to be NPA and no repayment forthcoming can never be regarded as justified. Complaint, regarding charging more than the entitlement it appears from the record that the bank has not charged more than the entitlement. Further, complainant-loanee has not substantiated his case by adducing any evidence that OP-Bank is claiming more money for which he is not entitled to. Considering the facts, it appears that complainant-loanee has not committed any deficiency in service. The interim direction issued by this Forum in I.A.Case No.18/2015 on dt.18.05.15 is hereby vacated. The next prayer of the complainant regarding direction of submitting the entire loan documents, executed between the complainant and OP-Bank, we, are of the opinion that complainant is at liberty to obtain the said documents through RTI Act or any other Forum by submitting the necessary application before the OP mentioning the details of documents and as per the official norms of the Opp.Party.
O R D E R
Having observation reflected above the case is dismissed without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 23rd day of November,2015.
