Orissa

Cuttak

CC/231/2022

Bimbisar Dash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Manager-cum-Authorised Officer,Stressed Assetes Recovery Branch,State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik & associates

17 Aug 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.231/2022

 

          Sri Bimbisar Dash,

           S/o: Late Lambodar Dash,

           Resident of Plot No.1262/C,Sector-6,

            C.D.A,Markaganagar,Vuttack-14.                                 ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.                 Chief Manager-Cum-Authorized Officer,

                           Stressed Assets Recovery Branch,

                           State Bank of India,Madhupatna,

                           Cuttack.

 

2.               Assistant General Manager,

Stressed Assets Recovery Branch,

                           State Bank of India,Madhupatna,

                           Cuttack.

                       

3.                 Branch Manager,

                           Jhanjiri Mangala Branch,

                          State Bank of India,,P.S:Purighat,

                          Town/Dist:Cuttack.                                                          ....Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    14.11.2022

Date of Order:  17.08.2023

 

For the complainant:                   Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P                :                  Mr. S.A.Ali,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                        

          Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the complainant alongwith his wife had applied for house building loan in order toconstruct their house at CDA.  They had applied for a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the O.Ps which was sanctioned against two loan accounts.  A sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was sanctioned against loan A/c no.10078720504 and another sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was sanctioned against loan A/c. No.30007839445.  The deed of agreement was executed in between the complainant and the O.Ps on 8.4.2004.  The complainant could get a sum of R.9,00,000/- transferred to his Savings Bank Account on nine occasions.  When he requested for transfer of the last instalment of loan to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- to his account, to his dismay, he was intimated by the O.Ps that the entire amount of Rs.10,00,000/- has already been transferred to his account.  He therefore wanted the accounts statement to that effect from 21.7.2004 to 4.3.2006.  But the O.Ps had provided him the accounts statement from 27.1.2004 to 25.4.2005.  In the year 2009, the O.P bank had given the complainant a repayment schedule which clearly reflected that an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- has been advanced to him against the total sanctioned amount of Rs.10,00,000/-.  The complainant on 6.10.2009 had represented to the O.Ps asking them for regularisation of his accounts and to release the undisbursed amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest but the O.P bank had issued a notice U/S-3(2) under the Surfaesi Act to the complainant on 21.2.2011.  The complainant had submitted his reply to the said letter of the O.P bank on 15.4.2011.  Though the O.Ps had disbursed only a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to the complainant, they had collected interest from him over a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-.  The matter was raised before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa where the parties were directed for a reconciliation.  The O.P bank had filed a counter affidavit in the said writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha mentioning therein that they had transferred Rs.10,00,000/ to the Savings Bank account of the complainant.  On 28.8.2015, the authorised officer of the O.Ps had written to the complainant as regards to the transfer of Rs.10,00,000/- to his Savings Bank account.  Though the complainant had made repeated requests dated 29,8,2012, 27.1.2014,27.11.2014 & 3.2.2015, the same were not provided to him.  The complainant had made efforts through RTI and could only procure six dates of disbursement to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- to his account.  By not getting the other copies through RTI, the complainant had subsequently tried before the Appellate authority of the O.P bank but was unable to procure the desired informations.  On 10.5.2021, the complainant had submitted a fresh application for supply of information about the disbursed amount, again on 23.7.2021 and ultimately on 13.8.2021 he had made such similar requests to the O.Ps but was unable to get the same.   On 6.3.2020, the ARCIL had requested the complainant for settlement of the accounts and accordingly, the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for settlement of both of his loan accounts.  On 4.9.2021, the complainant was supplied with the information that in the first loan account, though Rs.6,00,000/- was sanctioned, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was only disbursed.  It is for this, the complainant has urged through his complaint petition that the O.Ps had practised unfair trade and were deficient in their service also.  He thus, had filed this case against the O.Ps claiming refund of Rs.1,00,000/- with compound interest thereon @ 12% effective from 2004 -2005.  He also has claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss on rent for a period of about 10 years.  He has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- for tarnishing his prestige.  He has further claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards his mental agony, another sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of his litigation and further a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the escalatedcost of materials.

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

2.       The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their joint written version wherein they have stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  It is also grossly barred by limitation and the case as filed by the complainant is with an ulterior motive.  The O.Ps admit that by virtue of the house building loan application of the complainant and his wife, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was sanctioned in their favour.  The allegation as raised by the complainant that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has not been disbursed/transferred to his account is incorrect but as per the accounts statement, the last instalment of Rs.1,00,000/- was credited to the account of the complainant on 24.4.2005.  The O.Ps admit that the accounts statement of the complainant and his wife do not reflect such credit of the amount but it was actually not a fact.  The O.Ps through their written version have stated that the complainant and his wife are yet to pay an amount of Rs.8697.56p in respect of loan A/c. no.10078720504 and an amount of Rs.8000/- in respect of loan A/c. No.30007839445.  Since because the complainant and his wife had not cleared those balance amount for months together, the O.P bank had sold the said two accounts to ARCIL for Rs.6700/- each on 28.6.2014 and the balance amount thereafter in both the said loan accounts of Rs.1976.56p and Rs.1278/- respectively were written off on 9.7.2014.  As such, the said home loan account of the complainant has been closed since 2014 but the complainant has filed this case in the year 2022.

          The O.Ps through their written version have also stated about the sanction of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the house building loan in favour of the complainant and his wife on two loan accounts as stated by the complainant in his complaint petition.  The loan amounts were however disbursed on different dates and transfer of the loan amountswere made to the Savings Bank account of the complainant.  According to the O.Ps, the matter of dispute in between the complainant and themselves was settled as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in Writ Petition( C) no.15838/2011 dated 13.8.2012 and thereby the complainant with his wife had paid the outstanding duesin the year 2014  accepting the total disbursement amount to be of Rs.10,00,000/- thereby leaving a paltry sum unpaid in both the two accounts.  Accordingly, the O.Ps have urged through their written version for dismissal of the complaint petition as filed by the complainant. 

          The O.Ps have filed copies of several documents including the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa wherein the complainant was directed to appear before the concerned officer of the bank on 27.8.2012 alongwith the statement of account available and they shall be also supplied with statement of accounts maintained by the bank in order to reconcile the anomalies appearing therein.  The Hon’ble High Court of Orissaa has also held therein that once a decision in this regard is arrived at by the bank, the petitioners shall be intimated about the balance dues of the bank and they shall be given at least three months’ time to pay back the entire dues.

          The O.Ps have also filed copy of the accounts statement of the complainant showingthat the last loan instalment of Rs.1,00,000/-was credited to his account on 24.4.2005.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite 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.Ps  and if they have practised any unfair trade ?

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

The O.Ps have also filed evidence affidavit through  one Pradip Ranjan Mohapatra working as Chief Manager for them.  The said evidence affidavit when perused, it appears to be a reiteration of the averments as made by the O.Ps  in their written version and nothing else.

Issues no.i & II.

Out of the three issues, issues no.i & ii  being the pertinent issuesare taken up  together first for consideration here in this case.

After going through the complaint petition, the written version, the written notes of submissions from either sides, the evidence affidavit as filed for and on behalf of the O.Ps and after perusing all the copies of several documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that infact the complainant alongwith his wife had applied for a home loan from the O.Ps, which was disbursed on several dates after being sanctioned in two loan accounts bearing no. 10078720504 &  no. 30007839445.  The cause of dispute was that it is the contention of the complainant that the O.Ps have only disbursed Rs.9,00,000/- in his favour whereas they had sanctioned the loan to be of Rs.10,00,000/- and thereby had not disbursed the last instalment amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in his favour.  He has filed copy of the accounts statement to support his contention.  Per contra, the O.Ps though admit about the loan of Rs.10,00,000/- sanctioned in favour of the complainant and his wife towards their house building in two loan accounts and they have disbursed the loan amount on different dates; they strictly refute the allegation as raised by the complainant that the last loan instalment amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was not disbursed in favour of the complainant.  The O.Ps ofcourse admit that the account statement provided to the complainant do not reflect the said last loan instalment of Rs.1,00,000/-to have been credited in favour of the complainant but when they had subsequently collected the account statement wherein , the same had been reflected signifying the credit of Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of the complainant and that the account statement had also reflected that on 24.4.2005 the last loan instalment amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the complainant.  The complainant being aggrieved had preferred writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa wherein he was directed to appear before the concerned officer of the O.Ps on a particular date where they were to be provided with the accounts statement of the bank and to settle the anomalies thereof.  The Hon’ble High Court had further provided time to the complainant thereby enabling him to clear the loan amount. Taking into account the sanctioned home loan to be of Rs.10,00,000/- in his favour,  the complainant had cleared the said loan alongwith interests thereon leaving a paltry amount unpaid on both of his loan accounts.  The O.P bank had thereafter sold the said two loan accounts to ARCIL and the residual amount thereafter was even written off.  This part is not disputed by the complainant at all.  Thus, this Commission finds that having regard to the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, the complainant alongwith his wife had attended by going to the concerned officer of the O.Psin order to settle the loan account and had thereby cleared the entire loan with interest therein leaving certain paltry amount as unpaid in the said two loan accounts.  This settlement was done in the year 2014 which is also not in dispute.  The complainant subsequently had appeared and had filed this case before this case before this Commission on 14.11.2022.  He has not whispered a single word as to why and under which circumstances, he had remained silent since from the year 2014 till to the fag end of the year 2022 when he thought it proper and had filed this case.  The O.Ps had also questioned this unreasonable delay through their written version mentioning that the case of the complainant is grossly barred by limitation and this Commission of course has to agree to such contention of the O.Ps.  When the matter was settled by the complainant with the O.Ps, as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, the loan amount was repaid with interest thereon and when the bank had already adjusted the paltry amount left, it cannot be said here that there was any deficiency in the service by the O.Ps and that they had practised unfair trade.  Moreso, by filing the complaint case after elapse of eight years also makes this Commission conclude that the case of the complainant as filed is not maintainable being barred by limitation.  Accordingly, these two important issues go against the complainant.

Issue no.iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case being not maintainable, the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.

                                              ORDER

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

Order pronounced in the open court on the 17^th day of August,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                         

                                                                                            Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                       President

 

                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                     Member