Orissa

Cuttak

CC/74/2018

Rajnikanta Choudhury - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager,Allahabad Bank - Opp.Party(s)

P Sinha & associates

26 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. COINSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                    C.C.No.74/2018

             Rajanikanta Choudhury,

S/O:Late Sadasiv Choudhury,

At: Old Bhanja Lane,P.O:Badambadi,

P.S:Badambadi,Dist:Cuttack.                                       ...   Complainant.

 

                                    Vrs.

1.       The Manager,

Allahabad Bank,

Nayasarak Branch,Nayasarak,

Choudhury Bazar,Cuttack.

 

2.       Deputy General Manager,

Allahabad Bank,Zonal Office,

3/1-B-IRC Village,Nayapalli,

                 Bhubaneswar-751015

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    17.07.2018

Date of Order:  26.04.2022

 

For the complainant:   Mr.  P.Sinha,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1 & 2:  Mr. C.Panigrahi,Adv. & Associates

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

 

                        The case record is put up today for orders.

                        The case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that, the complainant while working as a clerk under Executive Engineer,City Distribution Division No.I ,Ranihat,Cuttack during the year 2003 had availed a personal loan  of Rs.80,000/- from the O.P No.1 on 4.4.2003 for renovation and repair of his dwelling house.  The said loan was to be repaid in 30 equal monthly instalments @ Rs.3145/- and the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of City Distribution Division No.1,Cuttack was authorised to deduct the E.M.Is from the salary of the complainant and also to deposit the same into the loan account of the complainant with O.P.1.  This deduction of E.M.I started from the month of May,2003 which was to be completed in the month of October,2005.  As per the complainant, the D.D.O had recovered the E.M.Is till 31.5.2006 from the salary of the complainant along with a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the leave encashment bill of the complainant towards full and final settlement of the loan amount which was incurred from the O.P.1 by the complainant and the said amount were deposited in the loan account of the complainant with the O.Ps in the month of June,2006.  Subsequently, the complainant had received a notice from the P.L.A(PUS) on 6.9.2017 with a direction to attend the reconciliation on 9.9.2017 at about 10.30 A.M. at the District Judge Court Premises of Cuttack.  The complainant could know that the outstanding amount of Rs.15,539/- was due from him to the O.Ps as on 24.8.17 towards the loan incurred by them.  According to the complainant, an excess amount of Rs.72,015/- was recovered by the O.P out of the outstanding dues from him since November,2005.  When the complainant wanted the details of the said transaction, he was not provided so by the O.Ps.  Thus according to the complainant, the O.Ps are liable to refund the excess amount of Rs.72,015/- along with compensation towards mental agony, harassment  to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and also a sum of Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost.   In support of his case the complainant has filed copies of connecting documents.

2.         Both the O.Ps have contested the case and have filed their written versions separately along with supportive documents. As per the written version of O.P.1, this complaint is not maintainable, barred by limitation, has no cause of action, liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties like the D.D.O of the department where the complainant was serving.  According to O.P.1, an outstanding amount of Rs.47,827/- was due from the complainant with effect from 22.2.2006 to 17.12.2007 by 8.6.2006.  On 23.6.2006, the D.D.O of the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs.43,932/- only for which there was an amount of Rs.3895/- as on 23.6.2006.  From the account statement the O.P.1 could know that an amount of Rs.2138/- was paid by the D.D.O on 24.3.2006 and 18.4.2006. On 8.5.2006, the said D.D.O has paid an amount of Rs.4,138/- and on 8.6.2006 he has further deposited an amount of Rs.3138/-.  It is for this there was an outstanding amount of Rs.47,827/-.  The D.D.O at last had transferred to the loan account of the complainant a sum of Rs.43,932/- for which there was an outstanding arrear due from the complainant to the tune of Rs.3895/-.  The O.P.1 has further mentioned in his written version that instead of clearing the total loan amount, the complainant has falsely filed this case which is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.

            Copy of the balance sheet of the complainant is filed showing the payment made by the complainant towards his loan account.

3.         The O.P No.2 has filed his separate written version wherein he has consented to adhere to the contents of the written version as filed by O.P No.1.

4.         Keeping in mind the contents of the complaint petition and the written version as well, it is pertinent here to decide the following issues:

            i.          Whether the case is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether the case is barred by law of limitation?

            iii.        Whether there was any cause of action to file this case?

            iv.        Whether the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

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

Issue No.2

            Though averred in the written version, the O.Ps have not proved anything in order to show that this case is barred by law of limitation.  On perusal of the case record, it can never be said that if the case is barred by law of limitation.  Accordingly this issue is answered.

Issue No.4.

            It is the consistent plea of the O.Ps that the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party like the D.D.O of the department where the complainant was serving.  The role of the D.D.O was like a post office here in this case as he was only to deduct the E.M.Is regarding the loan incurred by the complainant from the O.P and also to deposit the said amount in the loan account of the complainant with the O.Ps.  Thus it can never be said that the said D.D.O is a necessary party to this case.  Accordingly this issue is answered in the negative.

Issue No.1 & 3.

            Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the written version as well and scrutinising the documentary evidence as available here in this case, it can never be said that the complainant had cleared all the dues as agreed by him to the O.Ps.  Thus this case is never maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to file this case.

Issue No.5

            As per the above discussions, here it can be concluded that the complainant is not at all entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest and as regards the facts and circumstances without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this the 26^th day of April,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                    President

.                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.