Orissa

Jajapur

CC/81/2017

Ashok Kumar Acharya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Manager ,SBI,Jajpur Town Branch. - Opp.Party(s)

Satya Brata Samal.

25 Sep 2019

ORDER

 IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:     1. Shri Jiban ballav Das,President

                                                                           2. Shri Pitabas Mohanty, Member

                                                                          3. Miss Smita  Ray, Lady Member

                                             Dated the 25th day of  September,2019.

                                                      C.C.Case No. 81  of 2017.

Ashok ku.Acharya ,S/O Late Kanhu ch.Nayak

2.Bhakta Ballav Nath,S/O Late Damodar Nath

3.Bijay Ku.Sahoo, S/O Late Gobinda Sahoo

4.Suryanarayan Panda, S/O Late Narayan Panda

5.Sambunath Mallick, S/O Late Nabakishore Mallick

6.Chandramani Kar,S/O Late Pranakrushna Kar

7.Ananda Ch.Mishra, S/O Late Arjuni Ch.Mishra

8.Prafulla ku.Sathpathy, S/O Late Fakir Sathpathy

9.Niranjan Palai, S/O Late Ananda Pallai     

All are  employees of Dhaneswar High School

At. Gourasahi  ,P.O. Mashara,

P.S.Binjharpur.     

Dist.- Jajpur .                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                   .                                    

                                                  (Versus)

1. Chief Manager,State Bank of India, Jajpur Town branch , At/P.O/ Dist . Jajpur.
2. District Education Officer,Jajpur,At/P.O/Dt.Jajpur.
3. Treasury Officer,Dist.Treasury ,Jajpur,At/P.O/Dt.Jajpur.

 

                                                                                                                              ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                              

For the Complainant:                            Sri S.B.Samal, Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties : No.1                    Sri P.K.Daspattnaik,Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties No.2                       None

For the Opp.Parties No.3                      Self.

  

                                                                                                     Date of order:    25 . 09. 2019.

SHRI  PITABAS  MOHANTY,   M E M B E R

In the present case there are 9 petitioners who have filed the dispute against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service having same interest , nature and character.

           

The facts as stated by the petitioners in the complaint petition shortly are that the petitioners being the employee of Govt. of Odisha Education Deptt. at present are serving in Dhaneswar High School ,Goudasahi, Binjharpur .Owing to financial requirement all the above nine petitioners availed personal loan in the year 2004 from O.p.no.1  where the O.p.no.2 being the DDO executed an agreement with O.P.no.1 to pay the Emi of the loanees  in each month by deducting the same from the salary of the petitioners towards repayment of loan. Accordingly on the strength of agreement the loan of the petitioners was sanctioned by O.P.no.1 and subsequently though the EMIs of the loans was deducted  from the salary of the petitioners in each month  but through O.P.no.2 later on it is ascertained that some EMIs though has been deducted from the salary of the petitioners but same has not been credited to the loan account of the above named petitioners. According to petitions the bill no.92 though encased in the bank on 12.06 2009 but loan repayment  credited on 07.09.2009

            Bill No.223  though encased in the bank on 10.09.2009 but loan amount has been credited on 23.11.2009

            Bill No.138 though encased on 21.07.2009 but loan amount has not yet been credited to the loan account of the petitioner indicating missing credit .

            Owing to such irregularity by O.P.no.1 the petitioner not only are paying interest but also principal charge for which the petitioners though have approached the O.p.no.1 but to  no effect. In such situation the petitioners approached the DDO ( O.p.no.2) and the O.p.no.2 without any action cancelled the agreement which was made with  the O.P.no.1. It is further stated by the petitioners that after cancellation of the agreement  the petitioners are paying the loan installments. In the above situation it is alleged by the petitioners that due to missing credit the above named petitioners have suffered a lot for which they have filed the present dispute  with the prayer to direct the O.ps to pay the missing amount  and late credit interest  amount with up to date loan interest rate along with cost of this proceedings .

            There are 3 numbers of O.Ps  out of which O.P.no.1 appeared and filed the written version denying the allegation of the petitioners.

            The O.P.no.2 though appeared but did not contest the dispute by filing the written version. The O.p.no.3 has appeared and filed the parawise comments .

            As per written version of O.p.no.1 that the petitioners are employees of Dhaneswar High School Goudasahi, Binjharpur . This O.P is a nationalized Bank. In the year 2004 Bank was facilitating various financial/ loan facilities to the Government employee for their own requirements. This financial facilities are known as personal loan. The petitioners are all Govt .employee hence availed personal loan in their own name.

            As per arrangement loan amount would be repaid within stipulated period with specific  amount of Emi taking in to consideration of amount of loan taken by the borrower, besides these facts  concerned   DDO i.e inspector of School (D.E.O) furnished  an undertaking with the Bank that, he will deduct monthly Emi from the salary of the petitioners borrower  and deposited the same in the loan account of the borrower in the O.P  bank with the said arrangement loan was sanctioned and disbursed to the petitioners borrower. That in the aforementioned arrangement repayment of laon account was going on smoothly from the date of its sanction to allege dispute.  Now loan outstanding dues of all most all   the borrower petitioners have been  cleared as per their respective account number mentioned in the document attached with the complain petition.

            That as alleged by the petitioners their salary was  processed through their head master and sent to DDO i.e Inspector of Schools or DEO for approval and sent to local treasury for processing  and instructed  to the Bank for its payment in the individual account. In the instant case as per instruction of DDO and Government treasury the bank is to act when there was no such specific instruction for any such deduction of any person’s account bank can not deduct any amount prior to posting of such amount in his salary account. Hence any such discrepancy may not arise with O>p Bank as the detail calculation of individual account are always with the O.P.no.2 and 3 and the amount so credited in the individual account is directly deducted  from O.P.no.2  account.

            As per personal loan agreement each of the individual borrower has executed  “ Annexture-V” i.e irrevocable letter of authority by executing the same the individual borrower/ petitioners authorized the drawing disbursing authority to deduct sum of the amount i.e EMI for his/ her salary and deposited it in the loan account of his own in O.p.no.1 Bank. In the Annexture-VI the drawing disbursing authority executed an undertaking  in favour  of O.P.Bank that he will deposit Emi for the loan  amount received by his employee/ borrower from the O.P Bank and the said authority is irrevocable till final liquidation of the loan amount  besides these two undertaking borrowers have executed Annexture-VI A to and in favour of Bank in case of his/ her failure to repay ,  bank has got paramount right to recover the same. In the above state of affairs the O.P bank is no way liable for any  such deficiency caused to the petitioners/ borrower.

In the above state of affair O.P bank has never caused any deficiency for repayment of loan dues of the petitioner/ borrower. Hence the O.P bank is no way liable or deficient in providing services to the petitioners.

            For the reason stated above the complaint petition filed by the petitioners liable to be dismissed against the O.Ps.

            Similarly as per parawise comment of O.P.no.3  the Head master of Dhaneswarpur High school Gourasahi  is not the DDO rather the O.P.no.2 is the DDO .Further it is stated by O.P.no.3 that bill No.92 dt. 21.07.2009 .Bill No.223 dt. 10.09.2009 and Bill No. 238 dt. 21.07.2009 were not presented by the DDO in the Treasury.

            On the date of hearing we heard argument from the side of the petitioners and O.P.no.1 . The O.p.no.2 and 3 were absent.

            After perusal of the record we are inclined to hold that for the alleged occurrence both the petitioners and O.p.no.2 are liable . Accordingly blame shall be placed at the door of the petitioners  and O.P.no.2 .There may be mistake on the part of the O>p.no.1 but every mistake can not draw deficiency in service in view of Hon’ble State Commission ,Punjab reported in 2003-CTJ-296-Punjab and Sind Bank)

            As such without drawing any adverse inference against both the parties we dispose of the dispute as follows:

O R D E R

            The dispute is disposed of with direction that both the petitioners and O.P.no.2 with reconcile the loan account of the petitioners in Bank of O.P no.1 and   at the time of finalisation of loan .The O.P.no.1 is advised to reconsider the loan account of the petitioners taking into consideration the payment of EMIs of the petitioners without causing any financial loss to  the petitioners.

            This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25th  day of  September,2019. under my hand and seal of the Forum.