Orissa

Cuttak

CC/61/2020

Srimanta Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

B K Sinha & associates

19 Jun 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                             C.C.No.61/2020

    Srimanta Ghosh,

    At/P.O:Fakirpada,P.S:Kandarpur,

    Dist:Cuttack,Odisha,Pin-754100.                      ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.                        

 

The Branch Manager,

Union Bank of India,

ChauliaganjBranch,Cuttack-Paradip Road,

Nayabazar,Cuttack,Odisha.                              ...Opp. Party.

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    28.08.2020

Date of Order:  19.06.2023

 

For the complainant:         Mr. B.K.Sinha,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.                :         Mr. J.K.Swain,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

 

Case of the complainant in short is that he had started a poultry farm with name and style “Baba Poultry” at Fakirpada.   The complainant in order to set up his Poultry Farm had obtained loan from the O.P bank which was a subsidised loan.  During the super-cyclone “Fani” the Poultry Farm of the complainant was severely affected and accordingly, the complainant had intimated the O.P through his letter dated 6.7.19 in order to settle his damage claim.  According to the complainant, he had suffered a financial loss of Rs.18,00,000/-. The O.P without settling his damaged claim has claimed overdue amount through his letter.  The complainant has further alleged through his complaint petition that the O.P Bank without covering his Poultry Farm under insurance had made a life insurance of himself for five years with a recurring deposit of Rs.49,744/- per annum under the name and style “Adarsha”.  The premium amount was being deducted annually from the loan account of the complainant.  The said insurance policy was without the knowledge and consent of the complainant for which the complainant alleges about the unfair trade practice by the O.P.  It is for this, the complainant has come up with this case claiming a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- from the O.P towards compensation for deficiency in service alongwith a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental harassment as caused to him and further has made a prayer to waive all the outstanding loan amount as due from him.  The complainant has further prayed for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

          Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       The O.P has contested this case and has filed his written version wherein the O.P has mentioned that the case of the complainant is not maintainable, bad in the eye of law due to mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.  According to the O.P, the complainant has not approached with clean hands, rather had suppressed the material facts.  The loan of the complainant was disbursed on 22.3.2018 vide loan A/c. No.74806050000003 but the life insurance “Adaesha” was made on 27.2.2018 which was much prior to the sanction of the loan and the annual premium towards the said life insurance policy was being deducted from the Savings Bank Account of the complainant which was well within his knowledge.  From the S.B.Account bearing No.74782010000362 of the complainant through two number of debit vouchers of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- on 27.2.18 and 28.2.18 respectively were debited.  The complainant had signed after receiving the insurance policy on 16.4.2018 which is well evident as per the postal tracking report.  The O.P has suggested the complainant and had issued several notices for repayment of the overdue amount and also for depositing the fees of insurance but the complainant had remained silent for which, according to the O.P, there was no such deficiency in his service and the case of the complainant is thus liable to be dismissed.

          The O.P also together with his written version has also filed copies of several documents in order to prove his stand.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

i.        Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.       Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of                                                 the O.P and if the O.P has practised any unfair trade ?

iii.      Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

 

         

Issue no.ii.

                      Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue in this case, is taken up  first for consideration here.

                      After perusing the averments of the complaint petition, the averments as made in the written version and also after perusing the copies of several documents as annexed and available in this case record, it is noticed that infact the complainant had received the insurance policy which was towards insuring his life and not his Poultry Farm.  Annexure-W-3 series goes to show that infact the complainant was issued several letters from the O.P bank asking him to deposit the overdue amount and each of those letters of the O.P bank carries the signature of the complainant.  The complainant has remained silent about such submission as made by the O.P.  The complainant while starting his Poultry Farm has not initiated in insuring the said Poultry Farm but has tried to throw the responsibility on the O.P so as to make himself appear clean.  There was ofcourse damage to the said “Baba Poultry” farm of the complainant due to the super- cyclone “Fani” but it being a natural disaster and since when there was no insurance for the said Poultry Farm, the O.P cannot be roped into it.  As it appears from the facts and circumstances, being supported with the copies of documents as available in the case record, the complainant in order to avoid the payment of dues to the O.P Bank has tried to entangle the O.P in this case unnecessarily but after careful scrutinization and thorough probe, this Commission do not find any deficiency from any corner from the side of the O.P in order to fix responsibility upon the O.P towards deficiency in service or to conclude that the O.P had practised unfair trade.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the O.P.

Issues no.i& iii.

                      From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence, it is so ordered;

                                                          ORDER

                      Case is dismissed on contest against the O.P and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

                             Order pronounced in the open court on the 19^th day of June,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                            Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                       President

 

 

 

                                                                                                                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                             Member