Orissa

Jajapur

CC/19/2014

Pitamber Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dy.General Manager Grievance Redressal Officer Netwok-1 SBI - Opp.Party(s)

Badri Narayan Panda

24 Apr 2017

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

                                              Dated the 24th day of April,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.19 of 2014

Pitamber Panda  S/O Late Chandra sehkhar Panda

Vill/P.O .Khairabad

P.S./ Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                                                   …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       

                                                              (Versus)

1.Dy General Manager,Grievance Redressal Officer,net work-1,

   State Bank of India,Local Head Office, J.N.Marg, Bhubneswar .

2.Chief Manager, S.B.I,Jajpur Town, At/P.O. Jajpur Town,

   Dist.Jajpur.                                                                                                                        ……………..Opp.Parties.

                 

For the Complainant:                           Sri  B.N.Panda, Adv. Sri D.K.Nath, Advocate.                                                            

For the Opp.Party No.2:                       Sri P.K. Daspattnaik, Advocate.

For the Opp.Party No.1:                       None.

                                                                                                              Date of order:   24.04.2017.

SHRI  JIBAN BALLAV DAS , PRESIDENT .      

The petitioner has filed the present dispute alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

            The brief of the fact of the dispute in short is that as per complaint petition the complainant  availed a loan from O.Pno.2 under agriculture scheme on 30.06.2005 of r  Rs.4,96,000/- vide loan A/C No.11309518731 to  purchase a mini truck .That the complainant admitted  that  he was a  defaulter to pay the installment dues and he was a small farmer having kissan credit card No. 150520320 of the Central Co-operative Bank Cuttack from 25.02.2000  onwards  who is marked as a small farmer  and the relevant documents submitted to the D.G.M S.B.I, Bhubaneswar to waive out the  defaulted outstanding loan  of the present loan.

That it is pertinent to mention that after receiving the documents and representation the authority though remained  silent over the matter , on the other hand the O.P illegally seized the complaint’s   vehicle    on   15.12.2011   and   released  the  same  on  4.04.12  after  receiving a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- . It is alleged by the petitioner that  without giving any prior notice  the O.P seized the vehicle on the road which  is illegal. Accordingly the complainant has filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the Rs.1,00,000/- with interest and pass an order to waive out the complainant’s  loan amount .

            After appearance the O.Ps  have filed their written version taking  the following stand:

1.That the case is not maintainable in the eye of law.

2.That there are no cause of action in favour of the complainant to file this proceeding as against the O.ps.

3.That the proceeding is barred by law of limitation as prescribed under C.P. Act.

4.That the complainant has purchased a mini truck on the financial assistance of the O.ps in the year of 2005 for agricultural operation by way of security of loan . Besides that the complainant has also executed difference security documents like equitable mortgage in respect of the immovable properties in favour of the O.ps. That after execution of different security documents money was advanced  to him and he  purchased a mini truck and utilized  it for the purpose and earn profit out of it and deliberately could not repay the outstanding dues in spite of repeated reminder . The complaint could not regularize the loan account  and the O.Ps. by exercising its resources seized the hypothecated vehicle of the complainant and as per  request of the complainant released the vehicle on 30.07.2007 with some condition again when  the complainant did  not pay the dues of the O.Ps. The O.P further has  seized the hypothecated vehicle on 15.12.2011 and  after regularization on the defaulted dues ,the O.Ps released the said vehicle .

            Under the above circumstances the complainant had made an allegation that he has filed an application  to  waive out of his  defaulted amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as he is a small farmer , the said letter has been send to the higher authority of the O.P Bank . But the officer of the O.P Bank did not  consider it. The matter to  waive out of defaulted amount or any interest accrued on the loan is always banks internal decision based on the guide  lines as provided by the RBI. In any circumstances, if central ,government or State Government provided any relief in this regard then

O.P Bank is to consider it by calculating eligibility of the borrower. Now no such scheme is going on. Hence the borrower/ complainant allegation in this regard is baseless and imaginary one. For the reasons stated above this dispute is filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed .

            On the date of hearing we heard the argument from  learned advocates  of both the sides.

            After perusal of the record and documents filed from both the parties we are inclined to dispose of the present dispute as per our observations stated below:

1.That  it is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased a mini truck taking  financial assistance from  the O.Ps. It is  also admitted by the complainant in the complaint petition that he is a chronic defaulter for repaying the loan outstanding of the O.ps.

2.That the complainant alleged that the O.P without giving any repossession notice repossessed the vehicle on road and subsequently  released the same  after receipt of the defaulted amount .

3.It is also alleged by the complainant that he requested  the DGM of the O.Ps  to  waive the entire loan amount but the O.Ps did not listen to the grievance of the complainant . In this contest we verified the entire document in  the record  and we do not come across with  a single scrap of paper from the side of the complainant regarding his grievance before the O.Ps.  . On the other hand the complainant himself admitted that he is a defaulter in repaying the loan amount .In this contest after perusal of the observation of Hon’ble Supreme court reported in 2006-CTJ-209-SC(M.D Orix Auto Vers. Jogindar singh. We are inclined to hold that the O.Ps are empowered as per  terms and condition of the hypothecation agreement  to seize and sale of the financial vehicle  in case of default of monthly installment of  the loan account and in the instant  case the complainant released the vehicle by paying the defaulted  amount .Hence there is no cause of action for  the complainant to file  the  present dispute .

Hence the C.C. Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps. No cost.      

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 24th day of April,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.