Date of filing:- 06/03/2023.
Date of Order:-26/02/2024.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B A R G A R H (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 28 of 2023.
Khageswar Meher, aged about 63(sixty three) years, S/o Harihara Meher, R/o. Village- Nua Gudesira, Po. Gudesira, Ps/Tahasil/Dist. Bargarh. ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
Branch Manager, Utkal Grameen Bank, Dang Branch, Po. Bardol, Ps/Tahasil/Dist. Bargarh ..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Smt. M. Mishra, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri B.K.Mahapatra, Advocate.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agrawal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.26/02/2024. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President:-
1) The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a customer of the Opposite Party and in order to maintain his livelihood obtained a loan from Opposite Party having Account No. 12040038755 (TL/VL/26). The Opposite Party financed 4(four) lakhs on 27-01-2024 for the Cruiser having Chassis No. T57028507405, Engine No. D14027556 of the Bajaj Tempo Ltd. The vehicle was registered in the name of the Complainant bearing Regd No. OR-17-D-1598. The Complainant started payment of installment from January-2004 out of 72(seventy two) installments. The Complainant paid Rs. 2,57,767/-(Rupees two lakh fifty seven thousand seven hundred sixty seven)only towards principal and Rs. 1,92,183/-(Rupees one lakh ninety two thousand one hundred eighty three)only towards interest totaling Rs. 4,49,950/-(Rupees four lakh forty nine thousand nine hundred fifty)only to the Opposite Party. The loan was obtained against land of Mouza- Barahagoda vide consolidation Khata No. 606 in the name of Radha Krushna Meher, guarantor. On 21-01-2017 while the Complainant was taking the vehicle with passenger the Opposite Party with some hired people called as repossession agent seized the vehicle at Nuagarh forcibly and issued an inventory. Although payment has been made the Opposite Party agent told that for some outstanding the vehicle has been seized. The Complainant demanded the record of right of the land mortgaged but the Opposite Party told that the R.O.R. has been lost. The Complainant requested several time to return the R.O.R., but it was in vain. The Complainant came to know from one relation that the vehicle has been sold to one Tanu Sahu of Barahagoda without the knowledge of the Complainant and issued a notice dt. 04-02-2023 claiming Rs. 14,70,347/-(Rupees fourteen lakh seventy thousand three hundred forty seven)only and vide notice dated 03-03-2023 an amount of Rs. 14,84,874/-(Rupees fourteen lakh eighty four thousand eight hundred seventy four)only. The Opposite Party without following due procedure seized the vehicle, sold the vehicle, after payment also claiming Rs. 14,84,874/-(Rupees fourteen lakh eighty four thousand eight hundred seventy four)only and did not return the R.O.R. to the Complainant. Hence the Complainant filed this case before this Commission.
2) The case of the Opposite Party is that the Opposite Party Branch Manager, Utkal Grameen Bank, Dang Branch, Bargarh has filed its version. The Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant approached the Opposite Party for financial assistance to purchase the vehicle on the guarantee payment of one guarantor Jayram Das and another guarantor/mortgagor Radha Khrushna Meher. The borrower on 27-01-2005 executed an agreement for Medium Term Hypothecation of vehicle and on the same day the guarantors Radhakrushna Meher and Jayarama Das executed a guarantee agreement. Guarantor Radhakrushna Meher deposited his original title documents in respect of his immovable properties standing over Chaka Khata No. 606 of Mouza Barhaguda Ac. 0.30 dec to create an equitable mortgage with the intention of creating a security thereon for due repayment of Bank's loan by the borrower Khageswar Meher. The loan was repayable with interest in 72(seventy two) monthly installment of Rs. 7,720/-(Rupees seven thousand seven hundred twenty)only each for a period of 6(six) years from the date of sanction of the loan. The borrower has paid in total Rs. 1,72,752/-(Rupees one lakh seventy two thousand seven hundred fifty two)only. Thus in breach of the terms of the loan agreement the borrower made default in repayment of the loan and interest payable thereon, the Opposite Party served demand notice and made personal approach to borrower and guarantor but they did not care to pay the dues of the Opposite Party/Bank, consequent upon the loan account become NPA.
As the borrower remains indifferent over the demand notice and personal request the Opposite Party Bank cautioned the borrower vide seizure notice dated 15-12-2016. When the Complainant remain uncared the Opposite Party Bank seized the hypothecated vehicle on dt. 21-02-2017 and provided an inventory of the seized vehicle to the Complainant/borrower on the same day prior to putting the seized vehicle under auction sale the Opposite Party Bank also made paper publication in odiya daily News Paper(Pameya) dt.25-08-2017. After the paper publication also the Opposite Party Bank showing its lenient approach cautioned the borrower and brought to his notice facts with regard proposed auction sale of the seized vehicle as published in daily news paper (PAMEYA). The Opposite Party Bank provided an opportunity and addressed a letter dt. 28-08-2017 to the Complainant to get release the seized vehicle to avoid auction sale by making payment of the overdue loan outstanding in his loan account. The Complainant remains unconcerned over the request of the Opposite Party Bank. Finally the seized hypothecated vehicle was sold to highest bidder namely Niroj Kumar Sahu of village Barhaguda for a consideration of Rs. 1,10,000/-(Rupees one lakh ten thousand)only on 29-09-2017 and the same proceed was adjusted in the loan account of borrower on 29-09-2017. The Opposite Party Bank observing necessary formalities at the end of RTO authority has transferred the ownership of the sold vehicle stand in the name of borrower Khageswar Meher in the name of purchaser Niroj Kumar Sahu in the RTO record. The Opposite Party Bank has complied necessary formalities and has rightly put the pledged hypothecated vehicle under auction sale and has rightly adjusted the sale proceeding in the loan account of the borrower. The Opposite Party bank has not committed any illegality or deficiency in service. Hence the Opposite Party Bank prayed for dismissal of the case.
3) After perusal of complaint petition, version and documents filed by the Parties and following issues are framed:-
Issues
- Whether the Opposite Party is deficient in service ?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get ?
Issue No.1(one)
As per the documents filed by the Opposite Party the Opposite Party Bank has granted a loan on 27-01-2005 to the Complainant Khageswar Meher for an amount of Rs. 4(four) lakhs to purchase a vehicle. It is also admitted fact that the Opposite Party has seized the vehicle of the Complainant on 21-02-2017. As per the document filed by the Opposite Party the Complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 1,72,752/-(Rupees one lakh seventy two thousand seven hundred fifty two)only to the Opposite Party Bank. It is the main point that the Opposite Party has followed due procedure or not. The Opposite Party Bank submitted documents of paper publication in Oriya News Paper (PAMEYA) dt.25-08-2017 and letter dt.28-08-2017. But the Opposite Party has not filed bid sheet and post auction notice has not given to the Complainant. The Opposite Party has directly adjusted the auction amount in the loan account of the Complainant. Hence the auction is not proper. The Opposite Party has not followed due procedure which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The issued is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2(two)
For deficiency in service of the Opposite Party, the Complainant is entitled to get relief. The issue is answered accordingly.
As per supra discussion the following order is passed:-
O R D E R
4) The Complaint is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is directed to return the ROR of village Barhagoda to the Complainant and the Opposite Party is warned not to issue further demand notice to the Complainant. For deficiency in service the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only compensation and Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only for litigation expenses to the Complainant, failing which, the entire awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till realization.
Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Commission to-day i.e. Dt.26/02/2024 and the case is allowed against the Opposite Party and disposed off.
Supply free copies to the Parties.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, ( Smt.Jigeesha Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
(Smt. Anju Agrawal)
M e m b e r(w).
