Orissa

Jajapur

CC/66/2015

Pramod Kumar Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Bank of India Duburi Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Pranab Ku Das Pattnayak

30 Mar 2016

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                                     Present:1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President,

                                                                                   2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                                                  3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                            

                                              Dated the 30th day of March,2016.

                                       C.C.Case No.66 of 2015

Pramod Kumar Behera S/O Raibaria Behera

At.Baligiri P.O.Haridaspur

P.S.Dharmasala,Dist.Jajpur.

                                                                                          …… ……....Complainant /petitioner.                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.Branch Manager,Bank of India,Duburi Branch,At/P.O. Duburi,

     P.O. Kalinga Nagar,Dist. Jajpur.

2. Deputy General  Manager , Bank of India,1/ID Jaydev Vihar, Nayapalli

     Bhubaneswar.

3.Future General India Insurance Company Ltd,3^rd Floor,Sumitra Plaza ,Near Govt.

   Bus stand, Badambadi ,Cuttack.

                                                                                                                          …………………..Opp.Parties.

For the Complainant:                           Sri P.K. Daspattnaik, Advocate.

For the Opp.Party No.1:                      Sri J. Pati, Advocate.

For the Opp.Party No.3                       Sri S.K. Mishra, Sri R.K.Mohanty, Advocates.                                                         

                                                                                                                   Date of order:   30.03. 2016.

SHRI  PITABAS  MOHANTY,  MEMBER .

                      This is a dispute which has been filed from the side of the petitioners against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service due to non-settlement of outstanding amount of the loan which was availed by the petitioner for purchasing the Truck bearing No.0R-04-L-5685.

                The facts shortly, as stated by the petitioner in the complaint petition are that in order to maintain the livelihood the petitioner had purchased a Tata Truck in the year 2010 by availing loan from O.P no.1 and 2 and the said vehicle was insured with O.P.no.3 . In the mean time on the midnight of 21.09.2014, the above cited vehicle was stolen for which the petitioner had informed about the occurrence to O.P.no.1 and 2 . According to petitioner the O.P.no.1 also has informed O.P.no.3 regarding the theft of the vehicle. Subsequently owing to the above situation the petitioner became defaulter for which the  O.P.no.1 served demand notice to clear up the loan amount . As against such demand notice from the side of O.p.no.1, the petitioner approached O.P no.1 for one time settlement. As against  which, according to petitioner the O.P.no.1 instructed to deposit Rs.1,20,000/- for one time settlement. It is alleged by the petitioner that in view of  such instruction from the side of O.P.no.1 though the petitioner has deposited Rs.1,20,000/- for one time settlement but the O.Ps. playing hide and seek game after receipt of Rs.1,20,000/- at present has informed the petitioner to settle the outstanding dues of the loan after finalization of Insurance claim. Accordingly the petitioner finding no other way has filed the present dispute against the O.Ps. with the prayer to direct the O.P.no.1 to settle the loan amount as per compromise petition submitted by the petitioner on 22.12.2014 as well as award compensation and cost of Rs.50,000/- each.

                There are three number of O.Ps. out of which O.P.no.1 after appearance have filed the written version denying the allegations of the petitioner . The O.P.no.2 has not appeared.

                In the written version the O.P.no.1 has stated that for purchasing the alleged vehicle the petitioner has availed the loan in the year 2010 from the O.P. amounting to Rs.14,10,000/-. As per term and condition of the agreement though the petitioner is required to pay Rs.31,010/-  as monthly installment towards repayment of loan from November-2010 but due to non payment of the installment the O.P. Bank has filed a money suit bearing No.CS-III-233/2015 before the Civil Judge Sr.Division, Jajpur Road of Rs.13,75,857.63/- on 13.09.2015 and the same is pending for adjudication. In addition to it, the alleged vehicle has been stolen by some miscreants and since the vehicle was insured with O.P.no.3 (Insurance Company). After receipt of the information regarding  theft of the vehicle  the Insurance company had deputed Surveyor who after survey has submitted his report before Insurance Company  for settlement of Insurance claim in favour of the Bank . Apart from it is also the facts that the petitioner has wrote a letter on 22.12.2014 to the Bank for OTS settlement as well as has deposited Rs.1,20,000/- in favour of the Bank as token money for said OTS proposal. As against such proposal for OTS from the side of the petitioner the O.P.no.1 after getting clarification from the Higher Authority though has intimated the petitioner to consider the OTS proposal after receipt of the Insurance Claim of the alleged vehicle from the Insurance company but the petitioner with malafide intention  to grab the Insurance claim which is the public money has filed the present dispute which is liable to be dismissed since as against the loan amount of Rs.14,10,000/- the petitioner has paid only Rs.8,00,000/- for which O.T.S proposal is not acceptable as per law. Accordingly the  dispute is liable to be dismissed.

                The O.P.no.3 (Insurance company) after appearance also has filed the written version wherein it is stated by O.P.no.3 that though there is no grievance of the petitioner against O.P.no.3 but it is the fact that the alleged vehicle has been insured with O.P.no.3 vide policy No.2013y2656857-FCV which was valid from 25.10.2013 to 24.10.2014 . As against  the intimation of the petitioner regarding theft of the vehicle bearing No.0R-04L-5658 on 21.09.2014 the O.P.no.3 after processing the claim file  and has deputed the investigator for investigation as well as has asked the petitioner to submit some relevant documents. But the petitioner has not yet submitted the documents for which the claim file of the petitioner is pending for settlement of claim. Accordingly the dispute is liable to be dismissed against O.P.no.3.

                                After hearing from both the sides we have perused the record along with documents in detail as well as inclined to decide the present dispute as per our observation stated below:-

                                Admittedly the petitioner has filed the present dispute against the O.Ps. due to non settlement of his outstanding of loan on OTS basis. In this contest vide para-6 of the complaint petition the petitioner has stated that O.P.no.1 has instructed the petitioner to deposit the  amount of Rs.1,20,000/- as up front  price for processing the compromise petition. As  against such pleading from the side of the petitioner there is no iota of evidence or any materials from the side of the petitioner to prove that the O.P.no.1 has instructed to deposit the above amount  of Rs.1,20,000/- for processing the compromise proposal though the onus lies with the petitioner to prove the same by reliable relevant evidence  as per observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2000(1)CLT-33( Ravneet Singh Bagga Vrs.M/S KLM Royal Dutch Air lines and another), 2015 (4) CPR-144(N.C) (M/S Wipro Ltd Vrs.Surendra Singh Chana & Others)

                 As such , such contention of the petitioner is unsustainable in absence of any cogent evidence since the O.P.no.1 has stated in the written version that no such instruction has been given by O.P.no.1.

                As regards settlement of Insurance claim we are in the opinion that as per observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2009(1) CPR-p-1-S.C (M/S Krishna Food & Banking Industry  P. Ltd Vrs. M/S New India assurance Co. Ltd & another) wherein it is held that :-

“ As soon as  a decree   is passed or order is made in favour of the Insured the financing Bank became entitled to the said amount. For such relief it is not necessary for the Bank to became a plaintiff by filing a suit in a competent court of law and obtain a decree in its favour. This above observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly go to establish that law is consequently in favour of O.Ps. “

                Owing to the above analysis there is no merit in the present dispute for which the dispute is liable to be dismissed.

 

O R D E R

                                In the result the dispute is dismissed. No cost.

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of March ,2016. under my hand and seal of the Forum.