Orissa

Jajapur

CC/64/2014

Surama Rout - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kalinga Gramya Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sri B.N.Panda

11 Aug 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 11th day of August,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.64 of 2014

Surama Rout  W/O Sanjay Bhadra

Vill.Tikerpada  P.O. Darkundi

 P.S..Kuakhia,Dist-Jajpur.                                                                                      …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.Kalinga Gramya Bank,Head Office,Friends Colony ,Bajrakbati Road,   Cuttack .

2.Dy General Manager, Grievance Redressal Officer,Net Work-1,State

     Bank of India, Local Head Office, J.N.Marg,Bhubaneswar.

3. UCO. Bank, Barabati Branch,At/P.O. Barabati,P.S.Dharmasala, Dist.Jajpur.              ……..Opp.Parties. 

               

For the Complainant:                               Sri B.N.Panda, P.K. Sejapada, D.K.Nath, Advocates.

For the Opp.Parties No.1                         None.

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

For the Opp.Parties;No.3                        Sri A.K.Pahil, Advocate.

                                                                                                    

MISS SMITA  RAY, LADY   MEMBER .                                                                      Date of order:   11.08.2017.

            Deficiency in banking service is the grievance of the complainant.

            The fact of  the dispute in brief is that the petitioner applied a loan under Agriculture scheme   before O.P.no.3  and subsequently O.P.no.3 sanctioned a loan in favour of petitioner on 15.06.02 vide A/C No. 17660601712092 . It is stated by the petitioner that she is repaying the  loan regularly .  Further it is stated by the petitioner that as per Govt. of Odisha Ministry of finance and Union Budget 2008-09    Agriculture Debt waiver and Debt Relief Scheme  2008 vide Ref. no. NBCPD GCD/Debt weaver  2008-09 and  circular of   Agriculture Debt weaver Relief Scheme - 2008 . The Chariman Regional Rural Bank  has sent a letter to all banks for information about the scheme. After receipt of the letter  without  considering the petitioner balance loan  dues,  the O.P.no. 3  illegally,  arbitrarily and whimsically issued a notice to  repay  the loan amount . Accordingly  the petitioner  finding no alternative,  has knocked  this door of this Fora with the prayer to direct the O.Ps to waive the loan amount  under the above scheme and compensate the petitioner a sum of Rs.50,000/- as  cost of the proceeding for  negligence.

            There are three numbers  of O.Ps . The O.P.no. 1 did not choose to file written version and he has been set exparte vide order dt.05.12.14 . The O.P.No.2 and 3 filed their written version  through their learned advocate . 

            The O.P.no. 2 in their written version stated that :

There is no cause of action in favour of the complainant to file this proceeding as against this O.Ps .

As per complaint petition of the complainant she has availed a  Agriculture loan from O.P.no.3 i.e UCO Bank Barabati Branch . The O.P.No.2 is a different body corporate and no way related with this case. If the complainant has any grievances she may implead  O.P.no.3 as necessary and proper party to this proceeding . The O.P.no.2  is neither proper party nor   relief can be sought   against O.P.no.2. Hence the name O.P.No.2 be deleted from the cause title of the petition.

            The O.P.no.3 in their written  version  stated that : 

1.     The petition as laid in the  complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law .

2.  It is false to say that after sanction of the agriculture loan  the complainant regularly  is paying  the installment dues and  the O.P/ Bank without any intimation has received the amount and has  not issued NOC so also  Regional  Rural Bank has  sent a letter to all the banks directing to implement  Debut weaver scheme -2008  .

3. Further  the circular filed by the petitioner in connection with Debt Weaver 2008-09  is not applicable for her case . The complaint has availed a loan in the year- 2002 as per her own admission in para-5 of the  complaint petition  and as per agreement she has not repaid the total  loan amount by 2006 along with interest. So the present case is not maintainable because the complainant is a habituated defaulter .

4. Similarly  in order to escape her  liability  for  clearing  the  outstanding loan amount of Rs.9,41,502/- as on 31.3.14 , Knowingly  she has filed this case against O.Ps. The official staff of  O.P.3 as well as recovery agent of the bank approached the complainant for payment of the loan dues of the bank. In all occasion the complainant took time to pay the same .

The complainant being  a defaulter  having  outstanding dues as per record  has committed   breach of trust i.e  failed to perform her duties  as per loan agreement. So she is estopped to file this case before the Hon’ble court. Hence the complaint  is  liable to be dismissed .

            On the date of  hearing  we heard the argument from the side of the petitioner .After perusal of the record  along with documents filed from both sides It is observed that

1.It is undisputed fact that the complaint availed a loan  from O.P.no.3  in the year of 2002. And as per agreement  she is required to repay the loan  by 2006, but  as per loan account the petitioner is a willful   defaulter of such Agriculture Loan  and  having outstanding  amount of  Rs.9,41,502/-

3.It is also the  fact that the petitioner fails to  establish   her case  so as to be  eligible under the above Debt  weaver scheme   and the scheme was initiated in the year of 2008-09 but the petitioner filed the complaint in the year -2014 as it is not within the period of 2 years from the date of cause action as per section- 24  (A) of C.P.Act.

4.It is also a fact that the petitioner has impleaded O.P.no1 and 2 as party and  it is not understood  under  what circumstance she  has impleaded them as necessary party .

            In view of the above  pleadings and  documents on record and circumstances  of the case we are of the opinion that the petitioner fails to establish her  case against the O.Ps. to the hilt.

 

O R D E R

In the net result the C.C. Case is dismissed  Under section 26 of C.P.Act , as it is a vexatious proceeding against the O.Ps without awarding any cost .

            This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 11th day of August,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.