SRI NAYANANANDA DASH,MEMBER:-
The Present case relates to alleged deficiency of service by the Ops Bank is not releasing the remaining portion of the loan sanctioned as a result of which the complainant could not continue the Diary unit.
2. The complainant is his written complaint states that, Being unemployed have applied to the Op for sanction of loan for a Diary unit, and the District Agriculture Officer, Kendrapara had sponsored a diary unit in favour of the complainant to the Op Bank vide letter No. 36 dt. 05.01.09 and letter no. 1678 dt. 29.05.09. the Op Bank after getting the loan application in the prescribed format and after compilation of formalities sanctioned a loan for Rs. 4,00,000/- for establishment of a Diary unit. Subsequently, the Op Bank released Rs. 2,00,000/- as first phase of the loan for construction of cowshed and purchase of cows. Although one cowshed was constructed, no effort was made for purchase of cows from the approved firm which the Op had sanctioned a loan. As per complainant, first loan was sanctioned for construction of cowshed. The complainant with much difficulties and spending huge amount of money constructed a Pucca Cowshed over plot no. 542 of Mouza- Nankar for continuance of the Firm. But after that the Op intentionally did not disburse the rest loan amount for purchase of cows, therefore the complainant became unable to continue the firm without proper sanction of the loan and sustained financial loss.
Although the complainant on several occasions requested the Opp. parties to disburse the rest loan amount for purchase of the cows. The Op deferred the matter with some Plea or others. As per complainant this request for disbursement of rest loan continued for several years and the Op intentionally did not disburse to harass the complainant. Further the Op reported by gave threat to for take possession of the cowshed along with land over which the shed stands. Hence the complainant without finding any alternative way was completed to file this C.C. case. It is also stated that the cause of action of the case arose on 5/11/2015 when the Op-Bank refused to disburse the balance loan amount on favour of the complainant. Complainant by filing the complaint seeks a direction of the Forum to release the balance sanctioned loan amount and not to take repossession the plot no. 542 of Mouza- Nankar along with cost of litigation (But the complainant has not submitted any details of case like loan A/C No., date of sanction/disburse amount sanction/disbursed and other details but has stated the whole case is a casual manner without any details).
3. Being noticed, the Opp. bank has refused the general observations of the complainant through their written version. The op has questioned the maintainability of the case citing that the Diary Project was for the commercial purpose. The Op has also questioned the absence of details of the loan and its different associated information in the complaint petition without which the complainant becomes in completion. The Op-Bank has also stated that the complainant petition besides not mentioning the details of loan, was silent about the timing and manner of request of the complainant to the Op Bank to release the balance amount. Although the complainant did not mention the details of the loan and filed the case with a general description of the facts, the Op has given all the details of the loan and facts associated with it.
As per Op. the proposal for a Diary Project was sponsored by the Dist. Agriculture Officer for the year 2009 to vide letter No.-36 dt. 05.01.09 and thereafter its release amount letter No.- 1678 dt. 29.05.09. Thereafter the complainant submitted her loan application in prescribed manner on 28.10.09 to the complainant, the Op Bank sanctioned a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- and the loan documents were executed on 11.01.2010. Thereafter the Op Bank released an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant towards expenditure for cowshed and purchase of the 1st phase of milch cows. The complainant had reported by assured the Bank to purchase the cows in presence of the officials of the Op bank after being certified by the VAS Although a house to for used as cowshed was constructed but the cows were not purchased by the complainant fulfilling the requirement like purchase from approved dealer in presence of Bank Officer and being certified by VAS. Since there was no development after release of Rs. 2,00,000/-and there was no purchase of cows. The loan become irregular and the Bank started giving notices to the complainant for repayment of loan vide letter dt. 31.08.11,31.10.11, 25.12.12. 18.08.15 and 12.10.15. The Op Bank also filed a case against the complainant in the lok Adalat held in Kendrapara but nothing concrete emerged out.
Taking into consideration the arguments put forward by both the parties, one thing is clear is that the complainant availed Rs.2,00,000/- out of Rs. 4,00,000/- have sanctioned but reported by did not completely utilize the amount. Only cowshed was constructed but no cow was purchased .The complainant is silent about non purchase of cows. It being a sponsored loan by Dist. Agriculture Officer, the complainant should have intimated the Dist. Agriculture officer for the completion of the Project but no action was taken in this regard, Even no communication was done with the Op bank for the reported difficulties faced by the complainant. Further the loan was disbursed in January-2010 the complainant has filed the case in December-2015 almost after 6 years and in between nothing was done in concrete form under such circumstances it cannot be said that Op bank deliberately with held the release of 2nd phase of loan without being satisfied with the 1st phase being fully and properly utilized even after the receipt of the written statement the complainant does not clarify the questions regarding non-disburse not of 2nd phase of sanctioned loan amount.
Op-Bank also raised the question of maintainability of the complaint on the grounds that complainant cannot be treated as ‘consumer’ as per the definition of C.P. Act, 1986, as per the hypothecation agreement and letter dtd. 29/5/2009 of Dist. Agriculture Officer, Kendrapara reflected that the loan had been sanctioned for ‘commercial purpose’ that apart, the complaint is hit by law limitation as prescribed in the C.P.Act and the complaint suffers from non-joinder of parties. On the other hand complainant–loanee does not whispered a single sentence in any form to counter the same. On the grounds of non-joinder of parties and limitation of filing the complaint. In the instant dispute Dist. Agriculture officer who is the sponsoring agency has not been impledead as a party, further on the complaint petition, It is stated that the last cause of action arose 5/11/2015, when the Op-Bank refused to release the 2nd installment. But complainant does not substantiate his pleading of last cause of action by producing any evidence. From the documents and averments of w/s nowhere it is stated that Op-Bank after release of the first phase of loan amount assured the complainant to release the balance loan amount in favour of the complainant, further Notices of recovery of loan amount was issued much prior to the alleged date of last cause of action I.e. 5/11/2015. On our considered view the complaint is not maintainable for the said reasons.
Having observations, the complainant bears no merit and the Op-Bank has not committed any deficiency in service by not releasing the 2nd phase loan amount.
Accordingly the complainant is dismissed without any cost. And the Inter order passed in I.A. misc case No. 41/15 is here by vacated.
Pronounced today in the open Court this 5th day of October,2016.
