Orissa

Cuttak

CC/230/2023

Mihir Kumar Kanungo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deputy General Manager,Bank of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

S Mohanty & associates

27 Jun 2024

ORDER

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

      C.C.No.230/2023

Mihir Kumar Kanungo,

S/o: Late Surendra Nath Kanungo,

New Rausapatna,P.P:Buxibazar,

                     P.S:Purighat,Town/Dist:Cuttack

Managing Director of

M/s. PHYTO PHARMACEUTICAL PVT. LTD.,

Phase-II, New Industrial Estate,

                    Jagatpur,Cuttack-754021.                                                               ...Complainant

 

          Vrs.

 

1.        Bank of Baroda,

Represented by the Deputy General Manager,

Regional Office,Bhubaneswar,

                    1^st floor,Bivab Gulmohar,Behera Sahi,

Nayapalli, Bbhubaneswar-751012,Dist:Khurda.

 

2.      Chief Manager,Bank of Baroda,

Cuttack Main Branch,Chalachitra Bhawan,

Buxibazar, Dist:Cuttack-753001.                                 ….Opp. Parties.

  

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    06.07.2023

Date of Order:  27.06.2024

 

For the complainant:             Ms. Sumitra Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps               :            Mr. K.M.H.Niamati,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                   

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition bereft unnecessary details in short is that in order to run his business, he had incurred Term loan of Rs.30.75 lakh from the O.P bank which was sanctioned on 28.11.2006 with a cash credit limit of Rs.25.50 lakh and Bank guarantee of Rs.10,00,000/-.  Thus, in toto a sum of Rs.66,25,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the complainant by the O.P bank.  Due to irregular disbursement of cash credit loans by the O.P bank, the complainant had faced difficulties in meeting the orders as placed by the State Govt. for which they have faced certain irregularities in timely compliance of those orders.  Even if, the complainant had to pay penalty for such delayed compliance of the orders of the State Govt.  In order to mitigate the difficulties and clear up the loan dues of the O.P bank, the complainant had opted for One Time Settlement on 3.7.2017 which was negotiated for Rs.130 lakh.  The authorities of the O.P bank in their order dated 29.9.2017 had agreed for the One Time Settlement and to receive a sum of Rs.130 lakhs towards the full and final settlement of the account of the complainant.  Accordingly, the complainant had immediately deposited Rs.13 lakhs as 10% advance of the offered amount on 29.9.2017.  It was decided by the higher authorities of the O.P Bank that the said offer for the complainant would remain valid for six months with effect from 25.3.2018.  O.P no.2 had issued a letter to the complainant on 24.10.2017 asking him to pay the balance amount of Rs.117 lakh by 29.12.2017. The matter as intimated to the higher authorities of the O.P Bank by the complainant but still O.P no.2 had subsequently sent another letter to the complainant on 1.2.2018 directing him to pay the balance amount of Rs.117 lakh by 15.2.2018.  According to the complainant, such demand as made by the O.P no.2 is quite unreasonable, illegal and arbitrary.  However, on 31.3.18 after receiving the balance amount of Rs.117 lakh from the complainant, the bank had issued “No Dues Outstanding Certificate” to the complainant but it was at a delayed stage.  Due to such delay, the complainant had sustained severe loss as because without such certificate and without his original documents those which he had submitted while availing the loan, he could not avail any other loan from any other financial institution and thus there was delay in supplying medicines to the State Govt. also for which huge penalties were being imposed upon him.  The complainant had to pay the liquidated damages to the tune of Rs.29,03,543/- in the month of March,2019 to the Odisha State Medical Corporation.  When the complainant demanded for his original documents alongwith “No Dues Outstanding Certificate”, the O.P bank had issued a letter on 11.4.18 directing him to deposit another sum of Rs.3,35,000/- towards the interest @ 12% since because the amount of Rs.117 lakh was paid by him beyond 90 days.  Thus, the complainant was forced to deposit the said demanded amount of Rs.3,35,000/- subsequently also on 30.6.2018 under protest as he had no other way out.  The bank ultimately had issued “No Dues Outstanding Certificate” to the complainant on 4.8.2018 but had released all the land documents of the complainant on 12.2.19.  The complainant has further mentioned that on his application for restructuring his account though O.P no.2 had approved the same and had forwarded the same to the AGM vide letter dated 31.5.2013 for sanctioning the amount, the said approval of O.P no.2 was not carried out by the bank authorities. Ultimately, the OTS proposal was accepted in the year 2017 for which the complainant had suffered huge financial loss in his business by paying penalty of Rs.11,02,286/- during the month of March,2018 and Rs.29,03,543/- during the month of March,2019.  Thus, the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.40,05,829/- to the Corporation as penalty.  The complainant thus had approached with his petition before this Commission seeking direction to the O.Ps to award compensation to him to the tune of Rs.71,00,000/-.

          Both the O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly wherein they have stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable as he has no cause of action to file this case and he has filed the case with malafide intention.  They admit about the complainant availing loan from them which was subsequently declared NPA on 30.9.2013.  The complainant thereafter had applied for One Time Settlement and it was agreed that the loanee/complainant was to pay a sum of Rs.130 lakh thereby the over dues were writ off.  It was agreed that the complainant was to pay the said sum of Rs.130 lakh within 90 days of such settlement. Meeting to that effect was held on 3.7.17 wherein the complainant had agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.117 lakh soon.  It was also agreed that if the balance amount of Rs.117 lakh was not paid by the complainant within the agreed period of three months, then simple interest is to be levied @ 12% thereon.  The validity of the OTS period was upto 25.3.2018.  The complainant was given three months’ time for paying the balance amount towards the OTS and when he failed to deposit the balance money, simple interest @ 12% was charged after the elapse of the stipulated period of three months of repaying the balance amount.  The complainant had failed to clear the OTS amount within 90 days period as stipulated for which, simple interest was charged @ 12% and accordingly, the complainant was asked to pay an amount of Rs.3,35,000/- towards the interest thereon.  The complainant had received all the original title documents on 22.8.18 but he had suppressed the said material fact.  Thus, according to the O.Ps, the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed it being devoid of any merit.

          The O.Ps have also filed copies of several documents alongwith their written version in order to support their stand.

          The complainant has filed evidence affidavit here in this case which when perused appears to be a reiteration of the averments as made by the complainant in his complaint petition.

          Likewise, the O.Ps have  filed evidence affidavit through one Pravat Dash working as Chief Manager in the O.P Bank but when the evidence affidavit of the said Pravat Dash was perused, the same also appears to be a reiteration of the contents of the written version as filed by the O.Ps.

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 ?

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

Issues no.i & II.

Out of the three issues, for the sake of convenience, issues no.i & ii  are taken up  together first for consideration here in this case.

On perusal of the complaint petition, the written version, written notes of submissions as filed from both the sides, evidence affidavit as filed by both the parties as well as all the copies of documents available in the case record, it is noticed that admittedly here in this case the complainant was sanctioned loan from the O.P bank and the said loan account of the complainant was subsequently declared as NPA.  As per Annexure-A/1 filed on behalf of O.Ps by virtue of a meeting it was decided to settle the NPA account of the complainant for Rs.130 lakh with payment of 10% up-front fees of Rs.13 lakhs. Since because the complainant had paid Rs.13 lakh, he was expected to clear the balance amount of Rs.117 lakh within 90 days.  Since because the complainant had failed to deposit the balance amount towards OTS settlement, he was issued letters from the O.P bank in that context.  As it reveals from Annexure-H/1, the last payment towards the OTS was made by the complainant on 31.3.2018 which is well after expiry of 10 years of the deposit.  As per Annexure-I/1, the complainant had received his original documents from the O.P bank on 22.8.2018.  But, as per the statement of the complainant, he had paid the said interest of Rs.3,35,000/- on 30.6.2018 and the “No Due Outstanding Certificate” was issued to him by the O.P Bank on 4.8.2018.  Since when the interest was paid on the last day of the month of June,2018, in order to verify the process and to effect the closure of the loan account, the O.P bank by doing so had issued the “No Due Outstanding Certificate” on 4.8.18.  Thus, there is no undue or inordinate delay as alleged by the complainant here in this case against the O.Ps.  The complainant had received his documents on 22.8.18 which is well proved by virtue of his signature as available vide Annexure-I/1 but he has not filed any scrap of document in order to show that he had received the land documents from the O.P bank on 12.2.2019.

Moreso, the complainant was having his commercial business and nowhere in his complaint petition he has whispered a word that he was earning his livelihood from his business.  Thus, after taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence available here in this case, this Commission comes to a conclusion that infact there was no deficiency in service in any manner on the part of the O.Ps as alleged by the complainant here in this case and it also cannot be concluded here that the case is maintainable.  Accordingly, these two issues go against the complainant.

Issue No.iii.

          From the discussions as made above, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as made by him.  Hence it is so ordered.

                                              ORDER

The 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 27^th day of June,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                     

                                                                                 

                                                                                        Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President

                                                                                                   

 

                                                                                  Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                             Member