DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 16th day of October, 2017
C.D.Case No.122 of 2015
Sri Nrusingh Charan Nandi
S/o: Late Krushna Charan Nandi
Vill: Bayangdihi
Po: Nuahat
Ps: Dhusuri
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. The General Manager
State Bank of India, Regional Office, Bhadrak
At/Po: Bose Colony, OT Road
Dist: Balasore, Odisha
2. Assistant General Manager
State Bank of India, Bhadrak
At: Apartibindha Chhack
Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak, Odisha
…………………………..Opp. Parties
For the Complainant: Sasibhusan Panda & Others
For the OP No.1: Jatikanta nayak
Date of hearing : 15.05.2017
Date of order : 16.10.2017
SRI RAGHUNATH KAR,PRESIDENT
The complainant has made complaint against the O.Ps alleging against the deficiency of service are to the effect that.
The complainant’s mother Haramani Nandi incurred a loan from the OP No. 2 by making mortgage a title deed cost of Rs 10,000,00/- as security. The complainant’s mother applied for the loan for the purpose of constructing a market complex named & styled as “SRI KRISHAN MARKET COMPLEX”. The cost of the project was Rs 12,000,00/- but the OP No. 2 bank was agreed to grant the loan Rs 10,000,00/-. Actually the OP No. 2 bank granted Rs 6,000,00/- as loan but the loanee Haramani received Rs 5,000,00/- only in which the project could not be completed. As a result of which the mother of the complainant borrowed some amount as private loan to complete the project. Although the OP bank assured to advance Rs 10,000,00/- in favour of the title deed which was cost of Rs 12,000,00/- but in fact the OP bank granted the loan of Rs 6,000,00/- and the complainant was actually paid Rs 5,000,00/- in fact. OP has intentionally harassed due to non sanctioned the actual loan amount Rs 10,000,00/- to the complainant. The OP No. 2 bank has disbursed Rs 5,000,00/- for the construction of the project in which the said project could not be completed. The mother of the complainant borrowed the rest of the money from her kith & kins with heavy rate of interest. As a result of which the complainant’s mother sustained irreparable loss.
That the loanee preferred W.P (C) 4460/2014 before Hon’ble High Court of Odisha after receiving show cause notice of OP No. 2 bank on dt. 22.02.2014. Hon’ble Court pleased to direct the complainant to deposit Rs 2,30,000/- as OTS and the complainant deposited the same on dt. 03.05.2014 and submitted OTS proposal and also paid Rs 4,15,000/- in total out of loan amount Rs 5,000,00/- and made discussion with O.Ps bank for finalization of loan amount under OTS. Further the complaint submitted OTS proposal for Rs 6,000,00/- for approval of OP bank which OP No. 2 bank did not accept and made advertisement for E-auction on dt. 20.06.2014, violating order of Hon’ble High Court on dt. 07.03.2014. Thereafter the loanee preferred W.P (C) No. 11184/2014 before Hon’ble Court and Hon’ble Court vide order dt. 16.07.2014 in Misc Case No. 10279/14 directed-
“To maintain statuesque as on date in respect of said market complex and e-auction may proceed, but, no sale shall be confirmed nor possession thereof shall be handed over without leave of Hon’ble High Court of Odisha”.
The complainant has sought for the reliefs such as.
(i) The OP be directed to supply the information sought for as per Annexure-1 within seven days.
(ii) Rs 1,000,00/- for realization of fine in Favour of the O.Ps.
(iii) Rs 5,000,00/- be awarded in favour of the complainant as compensation for mental agony.
The complainant has filed some documents on behalf of him as follows:-
(i) Application form (ka) for RTI Xerox copy on 31.07.2014.-1 sheet
(ii) Information required under RTI Act 2005 on dt 01.08.2014 (Xerox copy). - 2 sheets
(iii) Xerox copy of letter- to the complainant on behalf of State Bank of India. - 1 Sheet Annexure- 2
(iv) Xerox copy of demand notice dt. 12.07.2011, - 3 sheets.
(v) Xerox copy of letter No. 8ME/47/2014 dt. 22.02.2014. - 1 sheet
(vi) Xerox copy of order dt. 07.03.2014 passed by Hon’ble High Court in W.P (C) No. 4460/2014.- 2 sheets.
(vii) Xerox copy of application dt. 13.03.2014 by Haramani Nnadi, - 1 sheet.
(viii) Copy of deposit slip bearing No. 6/303 dt. 03.05.2014. - 1 sheet
(ix) Copy of application dt. 16.06.2014. - 2 sheets
(x) Copy of letter SME/345/2014 dt. 19.06.2014 issuing by S.B.I, Bhadrak. - 2 sheets
(xi) Copy of order dt. 16.07.2014 in W.P (C) Case No. 11184/2014. - 3 sheets
(xii) Copy of application of RTI dt. 01.08.2014. - 1 sheet
(xiii) Copy of application of RTI dt. 31.07.2014. - 3 sheets
(xiv) Copy of letter No. RBO/R- 111/BLS/ADMIN/BNB/240 dt. 02.08.2014. - 1 sheet
On the other hand the OP No. 1 & 2 have appeared in this Forum through their concerned & filed their written version as follows- with regard to the para No. 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the complaint have not been commented because they have no link with this case. The Para No. 7, 8, 9 & 10 are strictly denied. According to the O.Ps the complainant has filed this case in a wrong jurisdiction because the complainant has asked for certain information’s by means of RTI Act. If the information was not available by the OP, the complainant should have preferred the appeal competent authority. Hence the present CD Case is not maintainable barred by jurisdiction. It has been further averred that the complainant has no liberty & right to submit application for obtaining this statements of account because he is not the borrower. The O.Ps have made compliance on 02.08.2014 being received the application on 31.07.2014. So there is no negligence in deficiency of service caused by the O.Ps. The complainant should have knocked at the door of the appropriate office of RTI & he should not have invoked this Forum. As the complainant or the account holder he is lacking the right of asking for the statements of the accounts. According to the banking provision the details of the accounts cannot be supplied to the outside. On the other hand this same could not be supplied to the applicant because the account number is not found in data base. Any matter arising between the bank & account’s holder is confined within the secret within the both parties. The application made by the applicant on 01.08.2014 & the information available in the computer supplied to him 02.08.2014. The document which was asked for, by the applicant is not a public document so a stranger is not entitled to the information. As there is no any deficiency of service the O.Ps are no way liable for any penalty. Hence prayed for dismissal for this case. The O.Ps have also filed some documents on behalf of him.
Although the O.Ps have relied upon & filed the written version by certain documents such as:-
1. Demand notice dt. 12.07.2011 - 3 sheets
2. Letter No. 8/ME/47/2014 dt. 22.02.2014 - 1 sheet
3. Copy of order dt. 07.03.2014 passed by
Hon’ble High Court WP (C) 4460/14 - 2 sheets
4. Application copy (OTS proposal)
Dt. 12.03.2014 by Haramani Nandi - 1 sheet
5. Copy of deposit slip bearing No. 6/303
Dt. 03.05.2014 - 1 sheet
6. Copy of application (OTS proposal)
dt. 16.06.2014 - 2 sheets
7. Copy of L. No. SME/345/2014
dt. 19.06.2014 issued by S.B.I, Bhadrak - 2 sheets
8. Copy of order dt. 16.07.2014 in
W.P (C) Case No. 11184/14 - 3 sheets
9. Copy of application order RTI
dt. 01.08.2014 - 1 sheet
10. Copy of application order RTI
Dt. 31.07.2014 - 1 sheet
11. Copy of letter No. RBO/R. 111/BLS
ADMIN/BNB/240 dt. 02.08.2014 - 1 sheet
The O.Ps have falsely filed list of the documents but actually they have no filed a single document on behalf of them.
OBSERVATION
We have already gone through the complaint, & the documents filed by him as well as the averments of the written version. We have held that the complainant is the son who is the guarantor, & borrower is the mother of the complainant. The borrower Haramani Nandi who availed a loan for construction of “SRI KRISHNA MARKET COMPLEX” at Bayangadihi over plot No. 226/3678/4093 & plot No. 387/4094 under katha 1043/219 of mouza Bayangadihi. The estimated cost of the project was 12 laks. The OP No. 2 bank was agreed to grant loan of 10 laKHS, BUT sanctioned 6 lakhs. The purpose of the complainant could not be fulfilled by this miger amount so he could not completed the project & was not able to let out the market building. So obviously no income was accrued out of the project. The borrower was also unable to repay the loan amount of the O.Ps. The O.Ps served demand notice upon the borrower under took to recover their debited amount by means of coercive procedure. As the complainant is the guarantor of this said loan, he was also served demand notice because he was held responsible & liable for the repayment of the loan when the borrower has become defaulter. According to the law when the burden of repayment was shifted to the guarantor, obviously he can obtain the details about the loan. So the complainant being the guarantor of the loan has applied to receive the statements of account. In this case he is legally feet to obtain the information about the details of the loan amount.
The O.Ps have repudiated the application made by the complainant under Sec- 4(1) clause 6 (1) of RTI Act. He should have preferred the appeal in respect of this application before the competent appellate authority within 30 days after repudiation of the application. But the complainant has not done so for which the cause of action of this case could not be fulfilled. At present the complainant’s case is not barred by limitation to prefer the appeal before the competent authority because it was under pendency for adjudication.
ORDER
The complaint is & the same be dismissed. The complainant has got liberty to file an appeal before the competent authority to obtain required information’s under RTI Act within 30 days on receipt of this order.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 16th October, 2017 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
(Sri Raghunath Kar)
President
(Sri Basanta Kumar Mallick)
Member
Typed to my dictation & corrected by me
(Sri Raghunath Kar)
(Apsara Begam) President
Member
