Orissa

Cuttak

CC/103/2020

Sitansu Jena - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

K S Das & associates

13 Apr 2022

ORDER

            IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. COINSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                    C.C.No.103/2020

            Sitanshu Jena,

S/O:Siba Charan Jena,

At:LKeutasahi,P.O:Chandinichowk,

P.S:Lalbag,Dist:Cuttack.                                         ... Complainant.

 

                                    Vrs.

1.        Branch Manager,State Bank of India,

Main Branch,Cuttack,At/PO:Chandinichowk,

               PS: Lalbag,Dist:-Cuttack

 

2.     Dhani Loans and Service Ltd.,

       2^nd Floor,Trishna Tower,Chandichhaka,Cuttack

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    02.12.2020

Date of Order:  13.04.2022

 

For the complainant: Mr.  K.S.Das,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.No.1:       Mr. P.V.Balakrishna,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.2:        Mr. S.P.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.                

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

            The case record is put up today for orders. 

Perused the case record.

The case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the complainant has a Savings Bank Account in the State Bank of India bearing Account No.34695021970 wherein O.P No.1 is the Branch Manager.  The complainant had borrowed a personal loan of Rs.24,700/- from a Private Finance Company(O.P.2) on 2.3.2020.  The amount was to be repaid in 24 instalments @ Rs.1472/- E.M.I, with effect from 5.4.2020 to 5.11.2020.  The complainant has alleged that the O.P.1 had deducted an amount of Rs.295/- on 27.9.2020, another amount of Rs.295/- on 14.11.2020 and also another amount of Rs.300/- on 16.11.2020 without any reason.  Inspite of his objection, O.P.1 has not expressed his opinion for which the complainant has filed this complaint petition with a prayer for compensating him to the tune of Rs.25,000/- towards his mental agony and deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps along with a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.

3. Both the O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their respective written versions. As per the written version of O.P.1, this complaint petition is not maintainable.  O.P.1 admits about the account of the complainant in the State Bank of India and about the loan availed by the complainant from O.P.2 and about the complainant agreeing to pay back the loan in instalments.  According to O.P.1 the E.M.Is agreed upon are to be paid by the complainant to O.P.2 for a time bound period electronically.  It is the contention of the O.P.1 that due to such invocation and requisition, the amount due from the complainant to the O.P.2 were duly being transferred from the account of the complainant to the loan account of the financier(O.P.2).  It is also admitted that the complainant had made a request to stop the money being deducted from his account and regarding the set up; to which the concerned officer of O.P.1 had explained the procedure of return from O.P.2 to O.P.1.  The complainant had agreed and was convinced but still then has filed this case subsequently, which, according to O.P.1 should be dismissed.

4. As per the written version of O.P.2, the complaint petition of the complainant is not maintainable being out of jurisdiction, barred by principle of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party and also barred by law of limitation.  It is also alleged that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction for trying this case.  O.P.2 admits to have provided the loan of Rs.24,700/- to the complainant vide loan Agreement No.IPERCTK08128037 dt.2.3.2020 which was to be repaid in 24 equated monthly instalments @ Rs.1472/- and the last E.M.I of Rs.1458/- within a period from 5.4.2020 to 5.3.2022.  The complainant had also availed credit loan facility of Rs.3180/- vide loan Agreement No.IDHADEL09254943  and the said credit facility was also to be repaid in 21 EW.M.Is @ Rs.64/- and last E.M.I was to be Rs.3244/- with effect from 5.9.2020 to 5.5.2022.  These credit facilities were availed by the complainant from O.P.2 through the scheme “Dhani” and a sum of Rs.100/- per month was to be levied towards dishonour of cheques.  Thus, it is the contention of O.P.2 to dismiss the complaint petition with exemplary cost.

5. From the above contentions as made out from either side, the following issues are required to be answered:

              i. Whether this Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition?

              ii.   Whether the complaint petition is maintainable?

             iii.   Whether the complainant is entitled the claims as made by him in his complaint    petition?

  Issue no.1 & 2

       After going through the facts and circumstances of this case, it is noticed that this Commission has jurisdiction to decide the dispute of the complainant and the dispute is not barred by law of limitation.  Accordingly the complaint petition is maintainable.  Both the issues are answered thus.

 

Issue No.3

It is admitted fact that the complainant had availed loan from O.P.2 and had also availed the “Dhani” loan from O.P.2 with a condition to repay the same.  Both the O.Ps also admit about the complainant availing loans.  O.P.2 has averred about the complainant agreeing to repay the loans as per the terms and conditions.

            But on perusal of the case record, it is noticed that neither the complainant nor the O.Ps have filed the deed of agreement by virtue of which the loan was being repaid to O.P.2 through O.P.1.  The complainant has filed his account statements only but in absence of such deed of agreement through which he was repaying the loans it can never be concluded here that the O.P.1 is at fault and the complainant is entitled to get the claim amount as made by him.  Accordingly this issue is answered.

                                                        ORDER

             In view of the above discussions, the complaint petition is dismissed and without any cost.

            Order pronounced in the open Court on this the 13^th day of April,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

 

                                                                                                                         Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                  President

.                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.