Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/82/2019

Manshu Kumar Prajapati - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, State Bank Of India, RAASMEC CUM SARK - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. Singh

23 Feb 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-06-05-2019

Date of final hearing-23-02-2023

 Date of Order-23-02-2023

Case No. 82/2019

Manshu Kumar Prajapati S/o Late Manilal Mahto

R/o Village School Balidih, P.O. and P.S. Balidih,

District Bokaro Jharkhand.

Vs.

Manager, State Bank Of India RAASMEC-CUM- SAARK

Main branch, City Centre, Sector-4, Bokaro Steel City

 

 Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-:Order:-

1. None turned up on behalf of complainant or O.P. on repeated call. It reveals from the record that this case is pending at the stage of argument in which complainant is absent since long therefore, in the given facts as per provision of Section 38 (3) (c) Consumer Protection Act. 2019 case has been taken up for decision on merit on the basis of materials available on record.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is that on 21.09.2015 he purchased Mahindra Tractor and Hydraulic trolley on loan of Rs. 5.49 lakh sanctioned by SBI Jenamore Branch under Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana. Further case is that he started to pay loan premium but he was irregular in payment, rather sometime he paid 2-3 installments at a time but thereafter, he paid premium regularly till 31.01.2019, inspite of it on next date his vehicle with trolley was taken away by the O.P. inspite of assurance to pay all dues. Due to act of the O.P. complainant became unemployed. Further case is that till January 2019 Rs. 3,38,308/- was paid by the complainant to the Bank and he promised to pay rest of the amount by the year 2020 inspite of it there was no settlement. Further case is that complainant was earning about Rs. 15,000/- per month from that very vehicle in this way he is suffering loss of that very amount. Hence it is prayed to direct the O.P. to pay compensation to the complainant and return the tractor trolley after receipt of all dues.
3. O.P. appeared on 18.06.2019 but has not filed any W.S. inspite of repeated directions. Hence case proceeded against the O.P. without W.S.
4. It reveals from the record that complainant is absent since 17.11.2021 and till date non appeared on his behalf. There is no evidence on record to show that complainant has deposited all premiums in time rather complaint petition itself discloses that complainant defaulted in payment of dues. It appears from the complaint petition that specific date for which default in payment has been made has not been disclosed. By filing interim application it has been disclosed by the complainant that his tractor trolley have already been put on auction sale as per notice published on 22.05.2019 in Prabhat Khabar New Paper. The letter dt. 20.05.2019 of the Bank filed by the complainant shows that till 30.04.2019 there was dues of Rs. 3,31,985/- and interest and other expenses were also liable to be paid by the complainant. It further appears that for realization of that very dues O.P. Bank has adopted legal recourse but illegality of that very proceeding cannot be adjudged by this Commission. It appears from the record that the branch which has sanctioned the loan amount has not been made party in this case.
5. Therefore, in light of above discussion we are of the view that complainant has failed to prove his case for grant of relief as prayed. Hence this case is dismissed with cost.

 

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

 

                                                                            

                  

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

                                                                                       Member