DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                C.C.NO. 78 OF 2022

                                                                              Date of Filing: 25.11.2022

                    Date of Order:  06.03.2023

Sri Shibaram Kanhar,

S/o- Late Pisu Kanhar,

At-Masterpada, OB Nagar

PO/PS- Phulbani Town

District-Kandhamal                      …………………….. Complainant.

Versus.

1. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India,

Phulbani Main Branch,

PO/PS Phulbani Town,

District-Kandhamal.

2. Ashutosh Acharya¸ Field Officer,

State Bank of India, Phulbani Main Branch,

PO/PS Phulbani Town,

District-Kandhamal.

3. Sri Rajendra Sahu, Present Field Officer,

State Bank of India, Phulbani Main Branch,

PO/PS Phulbani Town,

District-Kandhamal.                           ……….….. Opp. Parties.

Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

                         Sri Sudhakar Senapothi          - Member.

For the Complainant: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sahoo Adv. & associates

For OP No. 1               : Shri V.V.Ramdas and Shri J.K. Nayak, Advocates

For O.P. Nos 2&3        : Exparte

JUDGEMENT

Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President.

          Complainant Shibaram Kanhar has filed this case u/s 35 of the CP Act 2019 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties for refusing him to provide a loan without any genuine cause and praying therein for a direction to the Opposite Parties to sanction the loan, pay a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- towards the expenditure incurred by him, pay cost of litigation of Rs. 50, 000/- and compensation of Rs. 1,00000/- and another Rs. 50,000/- for harassment caused to him.

1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant approached Opposite Party Bank to build a house over his Plot No. 1071, Khatta No. 692 in Mauja Olen Batch Nagar in the month of December-2021 in the name of his wife Rajkumari Mallik. After approaching the Opposite Party No.1 for loan, as per his advice, he approached Opposite Party No. 2 and discussed about the Loan and the Opposite Party No. 2 gave him a list of documents and advised to procure these documents which were procured by incurring an expenditure of Rs. 1,20,000/-. After submission of all the documents, when he approached the Opposite Party No. 2, he was intimated that as it was the month of December, he cannot process the loan and it is to be processed thereafter. So after two months, when the complainant approached the OP, he was asked to file the IT Return of the Loanee and himself and demanded a sum of Rs. 10, 000/- towards sanction of loan as bribe. On his next visit, he came to know that the Opposite Party No. 2 has been transferred to some other place and he again met the Opposite Party No. 1 who called for the file and directed the new Field Officer to collect the field photograph and ascertain actual possession of ownership which was done by him. On 27.10.2022, the complainant and his wife went to the office of Opposite Party No.3 for finalization of the loan, but the Opposite Party No. 3 out-rightly rejected his application and misbehaved with the complainant in presence of his wife on the ground that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe Community. The complainant in first attempt had clearly stated about his job, income and fixed deposit etc. to the Opposite Party No. 1 and after enquiry, the O.P No.1 & 2 assured him to advance the loan for which they advised him to collect the documents and accordingly he proceeded to collect all the documents as per their list and also opened a SB Account on 15.12.2021. As the Opposite Party refused to advance the loan without any just and genuine reason, he has filed this case before this Commission for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint petition.
2. After receipt of notice, the Opposition Parties appeared through their Advocate and preferred not to file any written statement or document in support of their defence. So after the stipulated period, the case was taken up for hearing.
3. The points for adjudication of the case is whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in his complaint petition?
4. The complainant has prayed for direction to the Opposition Parties to provide him with a housing loan to himself or to his wife. This Commission is not competent to issue any direction to any Bank or any Financial Institution to advance a loan unless their norm is complied by the loanee.
5. The next prayer is to give direction to the Opposite Party to give him a sum of Rs. 1, 20,000/- which he met as expenditure for collecting documents to avail loan by the complainant. The complainant has not filed any documents before this Commission to prove that he has actually incurred the expenditure in connection with processing of the loan, to the tune of Rs,1,20,000p,but shows expenditure of Rs. 32,072/-(thirty two thousand seventy two)only.
6. Next prayer of the complainant is as regards compensation against harassment, deficiency in service and cost of litigation. It is settled principle of law that the Bank cannot make customers run to the Bank on several occasions and to discard their loan applications after a long period without assigning any reason thereof. In the instant case, the complainant has filed his evidence in shape of affidavit wherein he has stated that the Opposition Party Bank has refused to advance the loan to him on the ground that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Community and he has provided all the relevant documents to the Bank as per the list provided by Opposition Party No. 2. In spite of Notice, the Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 did not appear nor raised any objection to the allegations raised against them.
7. It is settled principle of law that where the Opposite Party/Parties in spite of service of notice, do not raise any objection to the allegations made against them, it is deemed to have been admitted by them. In the instant case, notice was served on all the Opposition Parties. But, the Opposition Party No. 1 appeared through his Advocate and the other Opposite Parties did not appear in spite of notice served upon them. So, it is deemed that the Opposite Parties have admitted the allegation against them.
8. That ,advancing of loan to a member of ST community  with out valid permission from competent authority is barred by Regulation 3 of OSATIP(by schedule tribe) regulation 1956 except agricultural loan. The O.P No.2 should have clearly explain this provision to the complainant and making him wrong from pillar to post and finally refusing him to grant loan is an act of deficiency in service and harassment by the bank officials and in our view O.P 2 is squarely responsible from such act of harassment and his liable to compensate to petitioner  for the loss and harassment suffered by him and hence the order.

ORDER

                   The complaint petition is allowed against Opposition Party No. 2 and dismissed against the Opposition Party No.1 & 3. The Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 100, 000/-(One lakh)only for deficiency in service and  harassment and a sum of Rs. 10, 000/- towards cost of litigation.  The order as to cost and compensation is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of  receipt of this order failing which it shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of order till it is actually paid to him.

                                                      Computerized & corrected by me.

         I Agree

     MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT

Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this  6^th day of March 2023 in the presence of the parties.  

     MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT