Presented by Sri P.K.Dash, Member:-
The Complaint pertains to deficiency in service as provided under the Consumer Protection Act-1986 and its brief fact is as follows:-
The Complainant is an agriculturist under the self employment scheme and for the development of his agriculture, he has availed an Agricultural Medium Term Loan of Rs.4,40,000/-(Rupees four lacs forty thousand)only from the Opposite Party/Bank for purchase of one tractor and trolly subsequently registered under the Regional Transport Authority, Bargarh bearing No. OR-17-F-5170 and OR-17-F-5171.
The Complainant contends that the loan was obtained in the year November-2008 and in the process of repayment of the loan amount, he had paid about Rs. 83,000/-(Rupees eighty three thousand)only on four different dates and the same was not reflected in his account bearing No.11530121690 inspite of his request before the Opposite Party.
Further the Complainant contends that inspite of drought in his area, the fact of which was appraised to the Opposite Party, after receiving notice on Dt.05/05/2011 he (Complainant) intended to deposite Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac)only towards the repayment of his loan amount. But the Opposite Party denied to receive the same and seized the tractor forcibly through one Pattnaik Associates and the tractor has been left in a vulnerable condition outside the premises of seizure agency for which he sustained heavy financial loss and mental suffering and such act of Opposite Party is a severe deficiency in providing service to the Complainant.
Further the Complainant by his self speculation, valued the tractor's price to be Rs.3,50,000/-(Rupees three lacs fifty thousand)only and prays to appropriate the same i.e. Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lacs fifty thousand)only towards the repayment of loan amount and Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only towards the mental suffering that he sustained for the said act of Opposite Party. Further the Complainant confirms his obligation to repay the balance out standing amount accrued in his loan account to the Opposite Party.
In support of his claim the Complainant files xerox copies of following documents.
Money receipt Dt.14/07/2010, Dt.17/07/2010 and Dt.02/02/2011 issued by State Bank of India, Padampur.
R.C. Book of tractor and trolly bearing No. OR-17-F-5170 and OR-17-F-5171.
Reprossed vehicle Inventory/Seizure list of tractor bearing No. OR-17-F-5170.
Money receipts issued by R.T. Authority.
Road permit papers issued by R.T. Authority.
On being noticed the Opposite Party appeared and filed its version through his counsel. In its version the Opposite Party denied to have cause any deficiency of service to the Complainant.
The case of the Opposite Party in nut shell is that an agricultural term loan of Rs.4,40,000/-(Rupees four lacs forty thousand)only was sanctioned infavour of the Complainant by the Opposite Party by virtue of a hypothecation agreement Dt.31/07/2008 executed by the Complainant infavour of Opposite Party. It was agreed that the said agricultural term loan was to be repayable by 18(eighteen) half yearly installment of Rs.24,445/-(Rupees twenty four thousand four hundred forty five)only each with interest @ 13.25% per annum with half yearly basis. The Complainant purchased one tractor and trolly with the sanctioned loan and paid Rs.46,000/-(Rupees forty six thousand)only in total for the repayment of loan amount to the Opposite Party which was insufficient to even meet the accrued interest of the loan amount.
Further the Opposite Party contends that as per the term and conditions of agreement, the Complainant was in due with 7(seven) numbers of installment amounting to Rs. 1,71,115/-(Rupees one lac seventy one thousand one hundred fifteen)only to the Opposite Party, is liable to repay the loan amount with agreed rate of interest @ 13.25% per annum and other charges. Due to failure of repayment of the loan amount the Opposite Party has seized the hypothecated vehicle i..e. Tractor bearing No. OR-17-F-5170 with the assistance of the seizure agency i.e. Pattnaik Associates, Burla after due notice to the Complainant on Dt.20/02/2011.
Further the Opposite party contends that in term of the agreement entered into between the Parties, the Opposite Party exercised its right of seizure for sale of the hypothecated vehicle i.e. the tractor bearing No. OR-17-F-5170 and in due request letters of the Opposite Party to its authorized valuer, assessed the value of the seized vehicle at Rs.1,70,000/-(Rupees one lac seventy thousand)only, considering the present condition and depreciation of the said seized vehicle.
To substantiate its claim the Opposite Party filed xerox copies of following documents.
Hypothecation agreement (AB-I)
Seizure letters of Opposite Party to the OIC , M/s Pattnaik Associates.
Arrangement letter of Opposite Party to borrower and guarantor.
Valuation report of seized vehicle bearing No.OR-17-F-5170.
True copy of statement of account of borrower Prahallad Pradhan.
Inventory/Seizure list of tractor bearing No. OR-17-F-5170.
The copy of documents filed by the Opposite Party after conclusion of the final hearing are not taken into consideration.
Further the Opposite party contends that the case is purely based on contract between the Parties and the enforcement of contractual right and liability are not actionable and this Opposite Party is in no way liable for deficiency of service.
The Opposite party prays for dismissal of the Complaint with cost.
From the assertions and counter assertions made by the Parties and the documents filed by them, it is evident that the present case relates to grant of loan, repayment there of and realization of the loan amount by the financing bank/Opposite Party in accordance with the agreement made by the Parties.
From the nature of the case stated above and from the pleadings of the Parties and evidence tendered by them, it is apparent that the present case certainly falls within the ambits of the provision of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act-1993 and SARFAESI Act.
As specific bar has been created in the above mentioned acts to entertain jurisdiction over the matter covered within the ambit of said Acts by other courts or authority. The principle has also been enunciated in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 688 of 2011 between Central Bank of India and Another (Petitioner) -Vrs- Ram Chandra Sahu and others (Opposite Parties) and also decision reported in A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 603 in the case of Titaghar Paper Mills Co Ltd. -Vrs- State of Orissa.
In view of the above discussion and bar created in the above said Acts and principle enunciated made above referred decisions, we don't think proper to delve into the merit of the case and the Parties if they so intend may take recourse of appropriate Court of law for their respective cause.
The Complaint disposed of accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree , I agree, I agree, Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) ( Smt. Anjali Behera) (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t.
