1. Alleging deficiency service and unfair trade practice the complainant filed this case against the O.Ps for a direction to issue loan clearance certificate and compensation.
2. The case of the complainant is that he had accepted a tractor loan from the O.P No.1 bearing loan Account No.11797905206 and after making all formalities the complainant’s loan was sanctioned and a tractor with trolley was supplied by O.P No.2 .The complainant had accepted the loan of the tractor for developing of his agricultural activities and accordingly all formalities have been maintained by the O.P No.3 and 4 for sanction of the loan amount. The complainant also deposited an amount of Rs.5, 35,011/- in totals till 11.10.2012 .He has paid more than the loan amount sanctioned and the O.P.No.1 always sent notice to seize the tractor of the complainant if he will not deposit the outstanding amount. The O.P No.1 has also not taken any steps for release of his subsidy amount on the purchase of tractor. The loan was sanctioned for the development of agricultures activities and the O.Ps had not taking steps for release of his subsidy amount inspite of the request made by the complainant .When no steps have been taken from any corner, he has filed this case before this forum for a direction to issue the loan clearance certificate along with compensation.
3. After being noticed all the O.Ps appeared except O.P No. 2 and 5 and filed their counter .The O.P No.4 though appeared through G.P no counter has been filed. The O.P.No.1 though received notice from this forum could not appear and at last he was set ex-parte.Though O.P.No.3 appeared and filed time petition and at last no counter has been filed, so he was also set ex-parte.
4 The case of the O.P No.2 is that the complaint is not maintainable against him. The O.P No.2 admits the purchase of tractor with Trolley from him on payment of actual price. The said tractor and trolley was delivered in presence of the Financial Officer .The O.P.No.2 had not done any unfair trade practice or deficiency service to the complainant and prays for dismissal of the case.
5.The case of the O.P.no.5 is that the case is not maintainable against him. The O.P No.5 is an organization who disburse the subsidy to the bank as per the recommendation of the Dist. Agriculture Officer, Boudh and in the particular case the documents of the complainant has not yet been forwarded to the APICOL. As such release of subsidy claim can not be done by him and the O.P. 5 not done any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service against the complainant and pray for dismissal of the case.
6. The point for determination in this case whether the complainant is a consumer against the O.Ps whether any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice has been caused to the complainant by the O.P.
7. The complainant had submitted all the documents such as loan account statement and also the payment receipt made to the O.P.No.1 on different dates. The complainant had purchased the tractor with trolley being financed by the O.P No.1 and also deposited the marginal money before the O.P No.1 for sanction of the loan .The O.P.No1 after making all formalities sanctioned the loan and tractor with trolley was supplied to the complainant .As such the complainant is a consumer against the O.Ps.As per the version of the O.P.No.5 the subsidy documents has not yet communicated by the DAO Boudh through Bank O.P No.1.There are gross illegality made by the O.P.No.3 and 4 who are not taken any steps for release of the subsidy amount of the complainant as such the O.PNo.1 also not taken any steps for the preparation of the release of subsidy amount. The complainant being an illiterate rustic villager rushed to the O.P for release of the subsidy amount but neither the bank nor the O.P No.3 and 4 had taken any steps in this case for the above purpose. The O.PNo.1 also issued a notice on 18.11.2009 to the complainant that a balance of Rs.1,35,257/- is outstanding against the loan account and asked for deposit the same but after that also the complainant had deposited more than the outstanding amount on different dates as shown from the loan account statement till date. The O.P No.1, 3 and 4 are equally liable for not taking any steps for release of subsidy amount which clearly shows deficiency of service and unfair trade practice made by them till today. It is the duty of the bank to take all steps through other O.Ps for release of the subsidy amount .Though the bank has been noticed through R.P with A.D and after receiving notice did not appear before the forum and set ex-parte.The Agriculture officer along with Dist Agriculture Officer also appeared but did not take any steps in support of their claim. The complainant had deposited his outstanding amount from day to day and always the bank served notice that heavy outstanding dues lying with the complainant and if he had failed to comply the same then the tractor of the complainant will be seized.
Taking into consideration of the case of the complainant and documents submitted by him and submission made by the O.Ps, we allow the case of the complainant in part and direct the O.P No.1 not to seize tractor from the possession of the complainant nor claim any amount henceforth as sufficient amount has been taken by him from the complainant. Though the O.P No.3 and 4 are necessary parties are not taken any steps for release of the subsidy amount and they also made deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and accordingly the O.P No.3 and 4 are directed to take steps for release the subsidy amount in favour of the complainant within one month from the date of this order and if they failed to do so they will pay Rs.10, 000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only as compensation to the complainant , failing which the complainant is at liberty to take steps against the O.P. The case against O.P No.2 and 5 are dismissed without cost.
Order pronounced in the open court under the seal and signature of the Forum this the 25th day of April, 2015.
