Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara,President.
- Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated,Bolangir the 23rd day of March 2015.
C.C.No.44 of 2014.
Balaram Pradhan, son of late Govinda Chandra Pradhan.
Resident of village-Khuntpali P.O.Barapudugia, P.S.
Bolangir Sadar, Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.Branch Manager,Utkal Grameen Bank, Chudapali Branch,
At-Chudapali P.S.Bolangir Sadar, Dist-Bolangir.
2.General Manager,Utkal Grameen Bank,At/P.S/Dist-Bolangir.
3.Chairman,Utkal Grameen Bank, At/P.O/P.S/Dist-Bolangir.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv.for the complainant- Sri A.K.Mishra & Associates.
Adv.for the O.Ps - Sri B.K.Mishra.
Date of filing of the case – 24.06.2014
Date of order of the case – 23.03.2015
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara,President.
In the matter of an application u/s.12 of the C.P.Act filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties.
2. The fact that gives rise to this case is that the complainant Balaram Pradhan of village-Khuntpali availed loans from Utkal Grameen Bank, herein after the O.P in purchase of a tractor & trolley and Tata Specio vehicle in the year 2004. Subsequently, the complainant opted for one time settlement, the O.Ps agreed and accordingly in application and approval entered into compromise settlement.
3. The complainant also averred as per the said compromise process, deposited Rs 5,65,700/- on dated 08.03.2013 & 27.03.2013 and the balance amount of Rs 1,60,000/- on dated 06.12.2013, Rs 50,000/- on dated 28.12.2013 and Rs 19,353/- on dated 30.12.2013,although the compromise is valid up to 31.03.2014.
4. The grouse of the complainant is that in completion of entire outstanding amount, the request is made to issue the no dues certificate which has been delayed and latter denied with fresh charges in outstanding to pay. Thus the case. The petitioner relied on compromise settlement letter dt.02.12.2013,deposit vouchers, receipts ( 4 nos) compromise/resolution of meetings dt.02.12.2013,affidavit and latter written note of argument.
5. On notice the O.P appeared on dt 1st July 2014 and filed the 0version dt.24.10.2014 contending the averments of para three of the complaint petition are not fully true as because, the complainant has availed four loans and not three loans, being more to add that the complainant has availed one KCC loan from Chandanbhati Branch of the bank.
6. The O.Ps also submit that the complainant was a regular defaulter in all of his loan accounts. The complainant also made application on dt.17.12.2012 for waiving of interest that charged in the loan accounts and the bank has allowed to settle the dues at Rs 7,92,000/- as against outstanding of Rs 9,34,634/-.Thus allowed a waiver of a sum of Rs 1,42,634/- towards interest accrued.
7. Further contended out of the loans disbursed, two loans i.e the TL (Tata Specio) and the ATL (Tractor) are motor vehicle loans and on such it is mandatory to obtain insurance to ply the vehicle on road so the bank debited necessary premium of Rs 15,674/- on dt.25.01.2013 for the Tata Specio and Rs 19,130/- on dt.08.11.2013 for the tractor through the respective loan accounts. Hence the borrower is under obligation to repay the statutory dues paid by the bank. The complainant has not sought for waiver of any statutory dues like Insurance premium paid to protect his interest. As ;the insurance premium amount remain unpaid in the loan account, even after repayment of the outstanding loan in terms of compromise, the issuance of no dues certificate was denied to him. Again admitting that a part payment of insurance premium amounting to Rs 3,495/- on dt.30.12.2013 has been collected and even not repaying the unpaid insurance premium the bank has handed the duplicate keys, security land document and insurance policy on his request. So the O.Ps pray dismissal of the complaint which is a misconceived one and also absolutely survives no cause of action being the claim of the complainant as is imaginary in not entitled to any relief. Relied on application dt.17.12.2012 by complainant, statement of A/c. 12018117116 and 12018001031.
8. Heard the learned advocates at both end. Perused the documents and available records at hand. Gone through the submission and thereof post argument at length.
9. On perusal of record, it is not denied by the parties that loans obtained for purpose of purchase vehicles. Further found the complainant defaulted in repayment and the approachment to waive of the accrued interest by the bank has allowed favourably.But the sole contention persists on the issue debiting insurance premium from the accounts of the complainant in post compromise settlement.
10. We come to the issue on the compromise settlement. The settlement of compromise on the outstanding loan relates to 2 nos of accounts respectively (i) Account No.12018117116 and (ii) Account No.12018001031 (AGL) and the complainant made an application for compromise settlement on SRTO Loan Account No.12018117116 on dated 17.12.2012 where as the compromise proposal put up by head office credit committee on resolution and in an analogous process allowed the same on the terms that;-
11. Terms and conditions of repayment;-
Out of the compromise offer, the borrower has already deposited Rs 5,65,700/- on 08.03.2013 & 27.03.2013 and the balance amount of Rs 2,26,300/- will be paid in lump sum within two months of compromise settlement. Interest to be paid @ simple PLR on balance compromise amount beyond one month. However the compromise will be valid upto 31.03.2014.
2. Please therefore,
(a) Advise the borrower the terms and conditions of the compromise proposal as stated above with advice that if the settled amount is not paid within the stipulated time, the compromise shall automatically stand withdrawn with restoration of the earlier terms and conditions status quo which should be duly acknowledged by him.
(b) Realize the balance compromise amount from the borrower within the stipulated time under confirmation to us.
( c ) Keep a proper record the amount of notional interest to be waived for future reference.
(d) Return to the borrower after closure of the loan account security documents, if any, kept at the branch at the time of sanction of the loan, duly acknowledged by the borrower mortgager.
(e) Issue a No Dues certificate incorporating therein “Account closed through compromise settlement”, in case the borrower demands for the same.
12. The issue surfaced when the complainant opted for issuance of “No dues Certificate”, which denial is admitted by them that insurance premium concerning 2 nos vehicle as debited still unpaid by the petitioner.
13. On perusal of the (HOCC-II-C) approved compromise terms and conditions in recording, same is binding between the parties in text and spirit. In view of same term,it is expressed under the head terms and condition of repayment- “Interest to be paid @ simple ;PLR on balance compromise amount beyond one month. So the clause specifically insists for interest to charged, not other charges or dues accrued to. Again as the settlement amount has been paid and no dispute survives for the settlement amount and the insurance charges as advanced by the bank beyond the subject of compromise and the addition of insurance premium on two occasions amounting to Rs 34,804/- has deemed to have travel beyond the terms, we note the O.Ps have resiled from their own approved terms.
14. On the contrary, we do agree with the advancement by the O.Ps that the unpaid amount as accrued by way of payment of insurance premium as statutorily mandatory and in view of hypothecation clause, the O.Ps under obligation to ensure insurance, but in the present case, in due observation of HOCC (HOCC-II-C) along with recommendation of regional office screen committee, Bolangir and with post facto approval, traveling beyond the approved terms and condition, it needs notice in acknowledging the complainant as per the clause 2(a) of the agreed compromise note. So the intimation of the issue prior to debit of such huge amount as promise is a fault & manner of performance within terms of section 2(g) of the C.P.Act.
Hence ordered;-
The O.Ps are hereby directed to issue “no dues certificate” without any fail to the petitioner within 30 days of this order and also debarred to collect the insurance dues as paid. Further they are directed to pay Rs 1,000/- as compensation towards harassment and mental agony caused and Rs 500/- towards litigation expenses within the aforesaid period failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till realization.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2015.
I agree.
(S.Rath) ( P.Samantara)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
