DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 4th day of August, 2018
Present:-
1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
C.D Case No. 69 of 2016
Sri Pratap Chandra Panda
S/o Late Anadi Charan Panda
At/Po: Bandhatia
Ps: Dhamnagar
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. Branch Manager
Punjab National Bank
Bhadrak Branch
At: Bypass, Bhadrak
Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak
2. Agency in charge of Seizure
C/o Branch Manager
Punjab National Bank
Bypass, Bhadrak- 756100
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel for Complainant: Sri Radhakanta Mohapatra, Advocate & Associates
Counsel for O.Ps: Sri Biswanath Sahoo (B), Advocate
Date of hearing: 13.02.2017
Date of order: 04.08.2018
SRI BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
This dispute arose out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the O.Ps.
The background facts of the complaint are to the effect that the complainant, in order to earn his lively hood, had borrowed/availed a loan of Rs 3,15,000/- from OP No. 1 (here in after said as OP Bank) on dt. 07.10.2009 for the purpose of acquiring a Mahindra Bolero pick up van. After availing such loan, the complainant had been paying the loan installments to the OP Bank. But for some unavoidable reasons, the complainant failed to repay the loan installments as per repayment schedule as a result of which the said loan account consequently became over due and in this situation OP Bank suggested to settle the loan account under One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme. Accordingly it was finalized to close the account on payment of Rs 1,72,000/- excluding the amount of Rs 88,000/- paid to OP Bank on 05.02.2016 and 17.02.2016. The complainant paid the settled amount of Rs 1,72,000/- to the OP Bank on 23.02.2106 for release of vehicle which was seized on dt. 26.01.2016 by OP No. 2 who was authorized seizure agency of OP Bank. In spite of payments made as per settlement under OTS scheme, the OP bank did not release the vehicle rather demanded more amount to the credit of the loan account. When the OP Bank deliberately did not respond to the sincere requests the complainant, finding no other alternative, filed this dispute praying for a direction to OP Bank to augment the loss sustained by the complainant along with cost and compensation.
OP Bank protested/resisted the claim of the complainant and contested the case. In the written version, OP Bank has challenged the admission and maintainability of the case on the ground of no cause of action and no deficiency of service. In the entire complaint, the complainant has not mentioned as to where the deficiency of service caused, when the cause of action arose, what was the amount of loan advanced and the date of advance of such loan and what was the settled amount under OTS scheme nor has adduced any evidence on the aforementioned points. The OP has also raised another vital point about the pendency of 1CC case vide No. 502/13 filed in the year 2013 against the complainant consequent upon dishonor of a cheque drawn by the complainant towards payment of loan dues. The complainant in order to avoid payment of the loan dues outstanding against him took too much false plea and suppressed the facts which are barely required to be incorporated/mentioned in the complaint. As regards settlement of loan under OTS scheme, it is stated by the OP that the OP bank has neither extended any relief under the said scheme nor has settled any amount for payment at a go. But it is a fact that the complainant has made an application requesting the OP Bank so as to able to close two loan accounts maintained with the OP Bank if settled within Rs 4,50,000/- which was not practically possible as the complaint has not applied to the OP Bank for OTS in the prescribed form available at Branch. Finally OP Bank has prayed the Forum to dismiss the case as there is no deficiency of service and the complainant has suppressed the relevant facts and has not come the Forum will clean hands.
Although OP No. 2 made a party to this case, as it was the authorized seizure agency of the OP Bank and seized the asset on behalf of the Bank, the complainant has not whispered even a word in the entire complaint and never told anything about how OP No. 2 is negligent in providing service or where the said OP has violated the procedure as prescribed in law.
Perused the complaint of the complainant, written version of O.Ps, heard the parties to this case and referred materials on record. It is evident that the complainant had availed loan from the OP Bank for acquiring a Mahindra Bolero pick up van as both the parties have admitted in their respective complaint and written version. The complainant has neither furnished any evidence regarding sanction of loan, repayment schedule, amount of EMI, what is the quantum/amount he has paid to the Bank to the credit of said loan amount and papers pertaining to one time settlement of loan as a token of payment at the time of filing the case nor has submitted any evidence at the time of hearing of the case or afterwards before the order. Further it is also observed that the complainant has suppressed the relevant fact about the pendency of 1CC case in the Court of Hon’ble SDJMC/JMFC Bhadrak since 2013 which is much before the date of filing this dispute. Finally this Forum, after a through analysis, could not find a single instance about the OP Bank has not provided service to the complainant. Hence there was no deficiency of service of the OP in any occasion. For the reason of suppression of facts, no deficiency of service and failure to adduce evidence to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint, the dispute filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
In the result, the present complaint is dismissed on contest and in the circumstances without cost.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 4th day of August, 2018 under the seal of the Forum.
