Orissa

Cuttak

CC/65/2022

Prabhudatta Mohapatra - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager,Odisha Gramya Bank(Govt of India Undertaking) - Opp.Party(s)

L Das & associates

30 May 2023

ORDER

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

                                             C.C.No.65/2022

             Prabhudatta Mohapatra,

             S/O:Baikuntha Nath Mohapatra,

             C/O:Bilash Chandra Das,At:Sabalpur,

             P.O:Bentkr, P.S:Cuttack Sadar,

             Dist:Cuttack.                                                                       ... Complainant.

          Vrs.                        

 

1.         Odisha Gramya Bank (Govt. of India Undertaking),

                          Regd. Office:Jagamara,Sundarpada Road,

                          Gandamunda,Pokharipur,Bhubaneswar,

                          Represented through the General Manager.

 

2.         The Branch Manager,

Odisha Gramya Bank, Link Road,

Ad Market near Ratna Mandap,

PO:AD Market,P.S:Badambadi,Cuttack-753012.                                   ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    13.04.2022

Date of Order:  30.05.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. L.Das,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                :         Mrs. P.Mishra,Adv.& Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                             

             Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had made an application to the O.Ps for settling his loan account for an amount of Rs.33,00,000/- on 22.6.2018.  O.P no.2 through e.mail dt.27.6.2018 had intimated the complainant that the O.P bank has sanctioned the proposal of compromise settlement of the loan account of the complainant with a demand to deposit the rest of the compromised amount of Rs.13,00,000/- within a period of 90 days from the date of the said sanction and also had  acknowledged the payment of Rs.20,00,000/- as deposited by the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant had made payment of Rs.5,00,000/- in the shape of demand draft bearing no.102161 dt.1.10.18, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on 18.10.18 and again on 15.1.19 a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.  But inspite of clearance of the entire outstanding amount, “No Objection Certificate” was not given by the O.Ps to the complainant.  In this regard, on 4.9.19 the complainant had sent a mail to the O.P no.2 with a request to close his loan account and for issuance of “No Objection Certificate” but on 9.4.19 the O.P no.2 had issued a mail to the complainant asking him to deposit the interest to the tune of Rs.19,643/- since because the amount was deposited by the complainant beyond the stipulated time of the compromise of 90 days as fixed and as per the banking guidelines, the interest had accrued.  It was also made a request therein to the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.98,000/- towards the expenses as incurred for possession of the property.  Accordingly, the O.P no.2 had demanded a sum of Rs.1,17,643/- from the complainant for issuance of the “No Objection Certificate”.  It is for this, the” complainant has come up with this case seeking direction to the O.Ps for issuance of his No Objection Certificate” with regard to his loan A/c. No.41210600000005 on payment of interest for delayed payment of balance of the compromise amount and also for an amount of Rs.5000/- towards compensation for his mental harassment and illegal demands.  The complainant has further sought for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

             Together with 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 written version wherein they have stated that the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed which the complainant has filed with an oblique motive in order to avoid repayment of the outstanding dues.  According to the O.Ps no.1 & 2, on 28.9.10 the complainant alongwith his wife had availed  loan of Rs.38,00,000/- for construction of their residential house but subsequently they had defaulted in paying the E.M.Is.  When inspite of several persuasions, the complainant did not pay the outstanding loan amount as due from him, the O.P bank took initiative under the Surfaesi Act and had issued notice accordingly to the complainant.  On 28.9.10 and 7.2.18 the bank had taken physical possession of the properties those which were pledged.  On 23.2.18, the complainant had applied for NPA towards the outstanding amount of Rs.33,00,000/- as on 26.2.18.  After paying Rs.,20,00,000/- the complainant had agreed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.13,00,000/- by 20.3.18 which was due under the OTS scheme and had also agreed to pay the expenditure incurred towards taking possession of the pledged properties and also to pay the other incidental charges therein.  The O.P bank had agreed for the OTS with a condition that the complainant would clear the arrear amount of Rs.13,00,000/- within a period of 90 days and also to clear the expenditure incurred by the O.P bank towards the possession of the building that which was pledged together with the incidental charges of Rs.98,000/-.  Since because the complainant had failed to repay the outstanding arrear amount of Rs.13,00,000/- within the stipulated time period there was an additional interest of Rs.19,643/- together with the expenses incurred by the O.P bank while taking over physical possession of the pledged building of the complainant.  Thus, the outstanding amount of Rs.1,17,643/- is to be paid by the complainant prior to issuance of the NOC but the complainant without paying the same had filed this case in order to avoid such repayment and as such, the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.

             The O.Ps 1 & 2 have also filed copies of several documents in order to prove their stand.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper 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.P ?

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

          Both parties have filed their evidence affidavit in support of their stand which when perused it is noticed that the same are only the reiteration of the complaint petition as filed by the complainant and the written version as filed by the O.Ps respectively.

Issue no.ii.

          Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue in this case, is taken up  first for consideration here.

          It is admitted fact here in this case that the complainant had availed a loan for constructing his residential house out of which there was outstanding amount to be repaid to the tune of Rs.33,00,000/- when the bank had issued notice to the complainant under the Surfaesi Act.  After application of the complainant for OTS the bank had fixed a 90 days time period for clearing the outstanding arrear by then to the tune of Rs.13,00,000/- but the complainant had failed to repay the said loan within the stipulated time.  As it appears from Annexure-B provided by the O.Ps no.1 & 2, the complainant had agreed to pay the expenses incurred towards the taking over of possession of the pledged building which was of cost of Rs.98,000/-.  It is also noticed from Exhibit-C that the complainant was given a 90 days time period of repaying the outstanding amount of Rs.13,00,000/- to the O.P bank.  As it appears from the petition of the complainant that he had not cleared the balance amount of Rs.13,00,000/- within the stipulated time period of 90 days as given by the O.Ps.  When the complainant had not repaid the balance amount of Rs.13,00,000/- within the stipulated period of 90 days as per the guidelines, the O.Ps are not found to be deficient in their serviceby not issuing the “No Objection Certificate” in favour of the complainant who has to repay the interest thereto alongwith the incidental charges.

 

Issues no.i& iii.

          From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence it is so ordered;

                                                          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 30^th day of May,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                                                                            Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                       President

 

 

 

                                                                                                                            Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                          Member