Orissa

Jajapur

CC/49/2017

Kulamani Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,UCO Bank Madhuban Hat - Opp.Party(s)

Prashanta Ku Das

15 Sep 2018

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 15th day of September ,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No.49 of 2017

Kulamani Sahoo  , S/O Late Gandu Sahoo  

Vill. Sarangapur  , P.O. Sribantapur ,

P.S. Kuakhia , Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                   .                                     

                                                  (Versus)

Branch  Manager  ,UCO Bank ,Madhuban Hat ,At/P.O.Madhuban Hat,P.S.Kuakhia

Dt.Jajpur  .                                                                                                          ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

                                                                                                                                                              

For the Complainant:                            Sri P.K.Das, Advocates.

For the Opp.Party   :.                            Sri H.K.Pradhan ,Advocate  

                                                                                                     Date of order:   15.09.2018.

SHRI PITABAS  MOHANTY, MEMBER

            Deficiency in banking service is the grievance of the petitioner.

            The facts relevant  shortly  as per complaint petition is that the petitioner purchased a Tractor   bearing Regd. No. (No Regd. Number ) chasis No.PY3029D137382 , Engine No.PY5103B010686 for agriculture purpose   taking financial assistance of the o.ps. in the year -2005 . Initially the petitioner has paid  Rs.50,000/-  by  way  of fixed deposit bond before the O.P. .Thereafter the petitioner has already paid Rs.3,00,000/-  by installments  and also has  paid Rs. 25,000 on dt 17/8/16  and  Rs10,000/-  for health insurance .  In the mean time the Govt.  declared subsidy over the tractor loan which has not been deducted by the O.P   against the above loan .                    Further  on 15.09.16 as per compromise proposal of the O.P,  the petitioner was  willing  to pay Rs. 5,25,000/-  to settle the loan amount  . As per the compromise proposal the petitioner deposited Rs 25,000/-  dt 15.9.16 and  he had to pay the   rest 30%   offer amount  i.e Rs.  50,000/-  within 15 days . But  due to illness  and financial crisis  the petitioner was unable to pay the rest 30% within 15 days  and the petitioner  has requested  the  O.P  to allow two months time to pay the rest amount  . The O.P agreed  with the petitioner .  

            In the mean time without prior notice to the petitioner  on  dt.17.1.17 the O.P  with the help of priyadarsani  security  service  Agent repossessed the tractor  from the house of the petitioner in his absence . Thereafter the petitioner went to the O.P  bank and requested him to release the tractor on  payment of the rest amount as per the compromise proposal when the O.P  assured the petitioner to release the tractor in favour of him very soon. The  several request of the petitioner became in vain  till today from the date of re-possession of the vehicle .  As a result the petitioner has suffered irreparable loss  in his agriculture income   due to non availability  of Tractor . Accordingly  finding no other alternative way  the petitioner knocked the door of this fora with the prayer to  direct  the O.P  to release  the seized  tractor in favour of the petitioner  and also  pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation due to negligence .                                  

            After  receipt of notice  the O.P  appeared through their learned advocate  and filed their written version  stating that the instant proceeding is neither maintainable in law nor in fact.

That the cause of  action  as stated  by the petitioner is bad  in nature. That the fixed deposit Rs 50,000/- of petitioner was adjusted on dt 4.6.14  after prior agreement . That the complain of the petitioner  is not correct he has  already availed  subsidy  as declared by  Govt. of India in the Debt Recovery  process 2008  for Rs. 1,03,358/-  which   was deposited in his loan account on 30.04.09.

            Similarly  as per para-5 of the petition  he  signed   the compromise proposal on dt 15.9.16 and  paid Rs.25,000/- in the same day  as well as  made commitment to pay the rest 30%  offer amount i.e Rs.1,50,000/-  within 15 days which was on or before 30.09.16. That according to the compromise the complainant  have to pay 30% of offer amount on the same day .  The complainant have  to pay Rs.1,75,000/-  which was 30% of the Rs 5,25,000/-  but he paid only 25,000/-  and made  a commitment to pay the rest  Rs 1,50,000/-  within two months . That on 26.09.16  a notice of   reminder was sent  to the petitioner  regarding payment of due which was served  on  him but   the complainant  failed to pay rest 30% offer amount i.e Rs.1,50,000/-  within the period of commitment .That  on 5.12.16  another notice  was sent to the complainant  which was served by Santilata Sahoo and  lastly on  9.12.16  a notice was sent to the complainant  and also served  to Santilata Sahoo in which he was given alredy 7 days time to pay the offer amount . By this way the complainant was given already  two months time from 15.09.16  only  to give the offer amount  . That after giving three months   the O.p bank seized the tractor   from the  custody and it was published  in the daily  news paper “ The Sambad “ all edition “ and in “ The New Indian Express” Odisha edition on dt. 21.01.17  for auction .   If the complainant   reached at the O.p ( Bank ) after publication of news paper  something might be happened .  but the petitioner  remained silent  and the petitioner always tried  to take different types  of plea like illness and financial crisis only to avoid the repay of  the loan  amount   .He gained all the income of the Tractor for  one year but over looked to pay the loan amount to  the O.P. The petitioner after receiving the tractor from the show room he did not registered it  in RTO. That is why the rate of the Tractor was reduced at the time of auction .When the O.P Bank asked about the Regd. No. of the Tractor he avoided it only saying he has and he will give it .  When the O.P Bank seized the  Tractor, it   became known  that  he did not registered and did not give any  Road tax to the Govt . He used the Tractor fraudulently by cheating the Govt. without any registration .

            That the complainant  is a habitual  offender . Hence ,  the case is  to be dismissed with cost as he cheated the Govt. to  give Tax .

            On the date of hearing we heard  the argument from both the sides  and after perusal of the record and documents in details we observed that  it is undisputed  fact that the complainant  purchased  the alleged  Tractor  taking financial assistance from the O.Ps .

1.As per hypothecation  agreement such loan along with interest  will be repaid  within the period of 7 years but the petitioner did not pay the same in time  and became defaulter.

As per compromise proposal  on dt 15.09.16 the petitioner deposited Rs.25,000/-  before the o.p and made commitment  to pay the rest  30 % offer amount  i.e. 1,50,000/-  within 15 days which  was on or before 30.09.16 .but the petitioner took time two months  and failed  to pay the rest amount as per the compromise  proposal .

That as per the complaint petition the petitioner availed subsidy declared by the Govt of India in the Debt Recovery Process 2008 and the subsidy amount of Rs.1,03,358/- was deposited in his loan account on 30.04.2009. The petitioner did not mention  any Regd. No. of the vehicle  in the complaint petition . It is also alleged by the O.P that the petitioner did not registered the tractor before the RTO. As a result  the tractor rate is reduced  at the time of auction  and the petitioner  did not give any tax  to the Govt.  but fraudulently  has cheated  the Govt .  Further  as per statement of the O.P  after giving  several reminder  letters from 15.09.16 to  17.10.17   the O.P  seized  tractor   from his custody  and has published   auction sale in the  daily news paper   of  Sambad  and The New Indian Express Odisha edition  on 21.01.2017   and finally  sold  the tractor on  public auction . .Hence  as per  the above observation  we are inclined to hold that  there is no deficiency of  service on the part of the  O.P  to  recover the loan dues  as per observation of  Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission reported in 2011(3) CPR-113-N.C, R.P.No.1178/2006 –N.C ( Surendra Kumar agarwal Vrs.Telco Finance  & others) , 1(2009) –CPJ-502-Union Teretory ( Ramesh ku.Sharma vrs.Kotak Mahindra Primus  Ltd, , 2006-CTJ-209-S.C(M.D  Orix Auto Finance India ltd Vrs. Jagmander Singh & another ) , there is much force in the submission of the O.P.

O R D E R

Hence the C.C.Case  is dismissed  against the O.P  on contest . No cost.

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 15th  day of September ,2018. under my hand and seal of the Forum.