Orissa

Jajapur

CC/81/2016

Prafulla Chandra Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Canara Bankl,Rambag Branch. - Opp.Party(s)

Laxmidhar Nayak

22 Dec 2017

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                      

                                                Dated the 22nd day of December,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.81 of 2016

Prafulla ch.Sahoo, S/O Late Kartika ch. Sahoo  

At. Hirapur  P.O. Rambag

P.S/ Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

Branch Manager,Canara Bank, Rambag Branch ,At/P.O. Rambag

Dt.jajpur.

                                                                                                                            ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                           Sri L.D.Nayak, Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties :                               Sri G.Ch.Panda, Miss B.R.Rout, Advocates.                                                                                     

                                                                                                          Date of order:   22.12.2017.

MISS  SMITA  RAY , LADY  MEMBER  .

            Deficiency in banking service is the grievance of the complainant.

            The fact relevant as per complaint petition is that the petitioner is an inhabitant of village .Hirapur of Dist. jajpur who  availed a KCC loan of Rs.50,000/-  from the O.P  for the purpose of Agriculture vide loan A/C No.1676847006797 .That out of the loan amount the petitioner paid Rs25,000/-  on difference dates  and there was  outstanding of  Rs. 40,466/ towards  principal along with interest till 20.1.15 and due to financial hardship the petitioner could not cleared up the loan dues.

            The KCC loan was sanctioned for crop purpose  and the area of the petitioner was repeatedly  declared as calamity  stricken area,  so the O.P  branch had offered  a proposal to  the petitioner to  clear- up the said  KCC loan  as OTS paying Rs. 15,000/-  and as per term and condition  petitioner deposited Rs. 25,000/-  i.e on 20.1.15 as OTS against the outstanding of Rs.40,466/- of KCC loan account . It is pertinent to mention here that though  the petitioner has a  fixed deposit bearing A/C No. 401/ 411 amounting of Rs13,000/ which was kept in  the bank as surety against the KCC  loan but the O.P bank  does not pay the said  matured amount  of the fixed deposit to the petitioner after several request to the  O.P. Rather the O.P did not pay any heed to the request of the petitioner on plea  that the said F.D has been  adjusted in  his loan account.  Thereafter the petitioner made an application before the O.P  to  provide his statement of loan account. But the O.P  did not provide the same .The reason best known to them.

              The petitioner also has stated that the loan amount  has  been  cleared when he has paid Rs.15000/-  under OTS scheme on dt. 20.1.15 . Hence he has no liability against  the loan account .Accordingly the stand taken by the O.Ps that  the F.D has been  adjusted in  the loan account was closed is not sustainable as per law .and the O.P  is liable to pay the entire maturity value of the F.D to the petitioner and this attitude of the O.P  is not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice. Accordingly  the petitioner has filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.P to refund the maturity value of fixed deposit along with to pay Rs.20,000/-  as compensation for mental agony.

             The O.Ps  entered   appearance and filed their  written version  taking following stand :

*That the case is not maintainable in the eye of law

*That it is true to say that the petitioner is a KCC   loan holder and  has availed of Rs.50,000/-  from the O.P  bank on dt.11.12.2009 .  At the time of availing the said loan the petitioner executed different  security documents  in favour of the bank  . After  availing the said loan the petitioner executed  the agreement to  repay  the loan dues . At the time of availing the loan  he has handed over a fixed deposit of Rs.13,901/- to the bank towards security of his loan . Due to default in repaying the loan the said loan account became NPA and by 20.1.15 the balance in loan account was Rs.47,00,2/- including interest. The petitioner has offered to pay Rs15,000 /- by cash for settlement of the loan account .The bank has never offered Rs15,000/-  for final settlement .On telephonic confirmation  of the Regional Office of the O.P  bank it was decided to settle the account on cash payment and adjustment of fixed deposit amount.,  This was made in presence of the petitioner .The account was decided to be closed on adjustment of his fixed deposit and cash payment of Rs15,000 /- .According to such understanding the petitioner has paid 15,000/-  on 20.1.15 .After cash payment of Rs.15000/-  the loan account balance remained  Rs.32,002/ and  Rs15,000/-  was kept in suspense in the bank . The fixed deposit can not be returned to the petitioner as prayed  by the petitioner . The O.P  bank has no deficiency in  service . The petitioner’s liability  was Rs. 47,00,2/ as on 20.1.15 . Besides this the adjustment of fixed  deposit of the petitioner and Rs15,000/-  on cash payment on 20.1.15 the balance of the loan account was exempted on OTS  by the O.P . It false to say that the  O.P  is  liable  for pray  Rs. 20,000 /- for mental agony and harassment .There was no understanding  to return the fixed deposit  amount to the  petitioner. Under above mentioned circumstances the case is  liable to be dismissed with cost.

            On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the learned advocate  of  both the sides. After perusal of the record and documents in details we observed that :

1. It is undisputed  fact that the petitioner has  availed a KCC loan from the O.P  vide KCC loan A/C  No. 1676847006797  a sum of Rs.50,000/-
2. It is also undisputed fact that in  the KCC loan account   under OTS  a sum of Rs.15,000/ has been deposited by the petitioner on 21.01.2015. .

The only dispute arises that the O.P is not returning  the maturity value of the fixed deposit  which was hypothecated before the O.P.

In this circumstances we verified the statement  of KCC  loan account  along with the offered  letter of OTS scheme . After verification it is found that the O.P  has mentioned  in the OTS office note that the outstanding of Rs. 40,466/. settled on OTS by depositing a sum of Rs.15,000/-  on spot payment .The petitioner also paid the same  as per the term and condition of the OTS  on  dt 20.1.15 . Thereafter we verified the statement  of account  of the above KCC loan and observed  that the said matured  amount  of the fixed deposit has not been  credited in the loan  account of the petitioner till 11.02.15 or till the date of receipt of  the OTS amount .The stand taken by the O.P  in the written version   after adjustment of fixed deposit and the cash payment of Rs. 15,000/-  by the

petitioner the KCC loan account   will be closed can not be accepted since  the  O.P  did not mentioned the same condition  in the offer  letter / office note on the OTS scheme .Hence, we are inclined to hold that the O.P  not only committed deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice due to non refunding the maturity amount of fixed deposit  amount to the petitioner .

Hence this Order

The O.Ps are directed to refund the maturity value of the fixed deposit  bearing  receipt no.1676/401/411 to the petitioner with up to date interest  within one month after receipt  of the order, failing which the O.P  is liable to pay 10,000/-  additional amount as compensation. No cost                      

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 22nd day of December,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.