Orissa

Jajapur

CC/63/2016

Gangadhar Samal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager ,Odisha Gramya Bank Jenapur Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Subas Chandra Das

30 Jun 2018

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

                                              Dated the 30 th day of June ,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No.63 of 2016

Gangadhar Samal   S/O Late  Banchhanidhi Samal

At/ P.O/.P.S  .Jenapur

Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                                                                                    …… ……....Complainant .                                                                      

                   (Versus)

  Branch Manager,Odisha Gramya Bank ,Jenapur Branch

,AtP.O/P.S/ Jenapur Dt.Jajpur.

                                                                                                                                                      …………………..Opp.Parties.                                                            

For the Complainant:                                   Sri  S.Das, dvocate.

For the Opp.Party                    :                    Sri G.C.Panda, Miss B.R.Rout,Advocates.

                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                           Date of order:  30. 06. 2018.

SHRI   JIBAN  BALLAV  DAS ,  PRESIDENT  .

Deficiency in banking service is the grievance of the petitioner.

                The petitioner is a Senior citizen aged about 67 years . His permanent resident is jenapur in the district of Jajpur . The petitioner being engaged in agriculture and farming  availed a Dairy loan in the year 2011 amounting to Rs.49,000/-. Instead of releasing of the amount the O.P on 13.01.16  served a demand notice for recovery of Rs.37,000/-  which includes Rs.12,000/- and its interest Rs.20,982/- .

                Due to such illegal and arbitrary demand by the O.P, the petitioner met the O.p in  RUNAMELA “ but the O>p did not care the petitioner request and demanded the money which includes the principal and interest . So finding no other ulternative way the petitioner came to this For a to redress his grievances. The complaint petition of petitioner supported by an affidavit.

                On the other hand the O.P in its written objection inter alia denying the maintainability of the case submitted after lapse of long five years the petitioner filed this case , the case is barred by law of limitation. The O.P also denied that the petitioner is not a consumer and submitted that there was no cause of action to file this case. The O.P has stated that there is no deficiency  of service by the O>P and stated that Annexture-A series be taken help of  for clarity and  satisfaction of this Fora.   Admitting para-3 of the petition,  the O.P submitted that the petitioner took the loan for earning livelihood but never utilized the same  .So the petitioner is duty bound to repay the loan as per law. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P and  only to avoid the  payment  such petition was filed . The written objection of the O.P  supported by an affidavit.              

            On the above pleadings of the parties the following issued are framed.

1.Whether the petitioner is a consumer or not  and  Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief sought for in the complaint petition ?

            Both the issues are answered in this observation. We heard the argument extensively from both the sides during hearing of this case .

            To substantiate the claim of the O.P  that the petitioner has not utilized  Rs.12,000/- , there is no inquiry report nor any visible documents for consideration. On the other hand the petitioner challenging the plea of the O.P  for non- utilization  submitted  that the V.S inquiry report ,Sarapanch certificate ,photograph of cowshed  have been submitted which is available  in the case record.  The petitioner also stated that the O.P  never claimed any money within 5 years but suddenly demanded Rs.37,000/- which is highly arbitrary ,illegal and unlawful on the part of the O.P.So after getting the demand notice on the petitioner filed the case on 10.08.16  which is well within the limitation .

            Having heard the rival contention of the parties and taking into consideration the age of the petitioner we are of the opinion that the O.P  should forgo the interest as the O.P  is also negligent

in taking timely action. In the written version which stated by the O.P   it can not be  said that the petitioner   mis-utilised the loan amount but in such a situation we are of the considered view that in absence of any enquiry report regarding the non-utilization  of money from the side of the O>P ,such contention of the O.P can not be accepted as per law .Accordingly onus lies with the O.P  to prove the same by any inquiry report / congnigent   evidence that the money was mis-utilised .

In addition to it  we  relied on some citations of Appellant Forums which are stated below:-

1.2000(1)CLT-677-SC (Vimal Ch. Grover Vrs. Bank of India-Annexture-A

                ‘ The petitioner is a consumer ‘.

2.111(2006)CPJ-29-NC-Bank of India and others Vrs.Chinmaya Bank and others –Annexture-E (Odisha Case)

“ Section 2(1)g –Banking and Financial services –loan –not honoring commitment –categorical assurance of appellant to release installment –same not released –complaint’s unit could not be started –Deficiency in service proved-State Commission rightly passed well reasoned order awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- -Not liable to be interfered with .”

3.2015(3)CPR-910-NC-Ratnakar Bank Ltd and Others Vrs. Sundeep Kumar – Annexture-F

“Banking – Deficiency in service- once loan facilities had been duly sanctioned and complainant had incurred substantial either for obtaining credit facilities or pursuant to sanction of facilities ,appellant Bank could not have refused to disburse loan amount except for cogent and valid reasons-There is deficiency in service on the part of Appellant  bank in rendering services to complainant-Appellant bank directed to pay  Rs.2.5 lakh to complainant as compensation .”

4.11(1991) CPJ-344-Odisha(Ravindra kumar Das Vrs.Managing Director)

                “The Fora can examine deficiency in service and give direction in respect of financial services .”

5.11(1994)CPJ-397-Odisha (Upendranath Swain     Vrs.Tapo bank Housing –annexture-H

“Section 2(I)(g)-Deficiency in service financial Assistance-Complainant applied for financial Assistance. Amount deposited- Thereafter O.P nor rendered financial assistance-whether any deficiency in service on the part of O.P-Yes.”                                

Therefore , this petition is allowed on contest against the O.P and the prayer of the petitioner is partly allowed.

            The petitioner  is directed to repay only the principal amount of  Rs.12,000/- within a period of two  months  after receipt of this order  but  without cost .

 

                      This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of June,2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.