DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).

Consumer Complaint  No.182 of 2023.

Date of hearing     :   18.06.2024.

Date of order                 :   02.07.2024.

Dated the  2^nd day of July 2024.

Sk. Nassem Ahmed, aged about 44 years,

S/o:- Sk. Mehmud, At:-Mathasahi,

Po/P.S/Dist:- Bhadrak, Pin:-756100,

Mob. No.- 9937122152 & 7008962077.           …………… Complainant.                    

            Vrs.                                                                                      

1. The Branch Manager,                                                                                                                                                                     Canara Bank, Bhadrak Branch,                                                                                                                                                          At:- By-Pass, Po/Dist:- Bhadrak, Pin-756100.                                                                                                                          
2. The Regional Manager, Canara Bank,                                                                                                                                                 At:- By-Pass, Po/Dist:- Bhadrak, Pin-756100…

P R E S E N T S.

          1. Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,

           2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.

                   Counsels appeared for the parties.

Counsel for the Complainant : Sri Debasish Nayak, Advocate.

Counsel for the Opp. Parties  : Sri Jamini Kanta Nayak, Advocate.

                                                J U D G M E N T.

SRI SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.

          In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

          A fact of the case is that, the complainant made an application to the O.P.No.1 Bank for financial assistance as advance to purchase a two wheeler. Being satisfied with the proposal of the complainant, the O.Ps decided to advance Rs.1,10,000/- & it was agreed between them the complainant would initial deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/- & liquidate the loan amount in 34 installments @ Rs.2,000/- per month. A loan account has been opened in the name of complainant bearing Loan Account No.3141603000026. The complainant has paid 23 Nos. of installments in due course of time and due to Covid-19 & illness of the wife and of the complainant failed to repay the loan amount. The complainant made a proposal for settlement of the loan & in due course of time the O.P. Bank considering for settlement under OTS Scheme settled the loan account at Rs.16,000/- & as per assurance and commitment of O.P. Bank the complainant deposited the said settled amount of Rs.16,000/-. At the time of deposit the staffs of the O.P.1 assured to grant of NOC & return of key within a short span. The O.P.1 has not granted the NOC & returned the key in spite of my repeated remind & request which shows lethargic attitude of the Bank. The complainant never committed any willful default or negligence in performance of his obligation, in other hand a serious responsibility under law cast against the O.Ps to fulfill the terms & conditions but no effective steps has yet been made which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. As such the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to provide the NOC & return of key to the complainant. The complainant has filed the documents i.e. 1) Deposit Slip, 2) Letter from O.P.1 to complainant, & 3) Notice dtd.02.01.2023 issued by complainant to the O.Ps.

          The case of the OP Bank is that the OTS Letter has been issued by OP No.1 but as per norms of the Bank should have been ratified by OP No.2. But OP No.2 did not sanction the OTS.

Having heard the rival contentions and after careful consideration of the materials available in the record, it is evident that OP No.1 has very clearly mentioned in its letter to complainant that he had to deposit Rs.16,000/- by 30/12/2021. Accordingly, the complainant has deposited Rs.16,000/- on 30/12/2021 against the loan. So, now the OP Bank cannot back track from what it has promised. It is appreciated that OP No.1 has written in that letter NOC would be issued after the same is sanctioned at the level of OP No.2. But as per the settled principles of consumer law, Bank is always liable for acts and omissions of its employees. The OP Bank has committed deficiency in service by not providing NOC and returning the extra key of the 2 wheeler. The complainant needs to be compensated for the harassment and mental agony which he suffered for the deficiency of service and negligence of the OP Bank. 

.                                             O R D E R.

In the result, the complaint be & same is allowed. The OPs are directed to issue “No demand Certificate” against Loan Account No.3141603000026 to the complainant and return his extra Key of the case two wheeler within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of the order. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and another Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of this order. In the event these OPs fail to carry out the order within the stipulated time, they are to pay the amount with 6% interest over the amount till the date they actually make payment.

This order is pronounced in the Open Court on this the 2^nd day of July 2024 under my hand and seal of the Commission.