Surendra Kumar Sahoo filed a consumer case on 26 Jul 2024 against SBI,SARB in the Cuttak Consumer Court. The case no is CC/79/2024 and the judgment uploaded on 09 Aug 2024.
IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.
C.C.no.79/2024
Surendra Kumar Sahoo,
S/o: Sukadev Sahoo,At:Panasuni,
P.O:Nadabhang,P.S/Dist:Jajpur. ...Complainant
Vrs.
SARB Cuttack,At:Seema Construction Complex,
Madhupatna,Dist:Cuttack
Through its Branch Manager.
Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (10027),
At/PO: Madhupatna,Dist:Cuttack-753010.
Kalinga Nagar Branch,Duburi,
At/PO:Duburi,P.S:Kalinga Nagar,Dist:Jajpur.
Present: Sri Debasish Nayak,President.
Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.
Date of filing: 06.03.2024
Date of Order: 26.07.2024
For the complainant: Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.
For the O.Ps no.1,2 & 3: Mr. A.K.Das,Adv. & Associates.
For the O.Ps No.4 : None.
Sri Debasish Nayak,President
Case of the complainants as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the complainant intending to purchase one Ashok Leyland 3718 truck in order to earn his livelihood and for self-employment, had approached the O.P Bank to sanction a loan in his favour. Accordingly, the O.P bank has released an amount of Rs.28,50,000/- in favour of the complainant. The complainant thereafter had purchased his indented truck vide chassis no. MB1NACHDOJREX0131, engine no. JEHZ413413 bearing Registration number OD-04M-0245. The said vehicle of the complainant was also insured under the Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd. having policy number P0024400020/4103/101689 which was effective from 14.9.2023 to 13.9.2024 and the IDV of the vehicle therein was of Rs.24,00,000/-. The complainant had paid the premium of Rs.54,721/- towards the said policy. While obtaining the loan, the loan agreement was executed in-between the complainant and the O.P bank on 30.7.2018 vide loan account number 37841796318 and the EMI was fixed at Rs.65,000/- which was to be repaid in 60 months. During Covid-19 pandemic period, the vehicle of the complainant could not ply for which no income was generated and subsequently, the said vehicle of the complainant was repossessed by the O.P bank on 3.9.2023 through their agent. O.P no.4 has threatened the complainant by issuing notice to transfer the ownership of the repossessed vehicle. Having no other way out, the complainant has approached before this Commission with a prayer for seeking direction to the O.P Bank in order to provide him loan agreement copy, to restrain them from selling the repossessed vehicle bearing Registration number OD-04M-0245 to any third party, to declare the repossession as made by the O.P bank to be illegal, also direct O.Pno.4 not to transfer ownership of the vehicle in favour of any third party, also to direct the O.P bank to release the repossessed vehicle in favour of the complainant and also to pass order thereby restraining the O.Ps from recovering any amount from the complainant. The complainant has further prayed for a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the O.Ps towards compensation for his mental agony and harassment, further to pay him a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of his litigation. He has also prayed for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.
Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.
2. O.Ps no.2,3 & 4 have jointly filed their written version wherein they have stated that the case of the complainant is not sustainable in the eye of law which is liable to be dismissed and the complainant does not fall within the ambit of provisions of the C.P Act,2019 since because the case is to be tried before the Debt Recovery Tribunal,Orissa,Cuttack. The case as filed by the complainant is baseless and flagrant, abuse of process of law in order to harass and blackmail the answering O.Ps and he has no loco-standi to initiate the present complaint before this Commission. The complaint petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The O.Ps have filed application no.476 of 2023 for recovery of outstanding loan amount from the complainant of this case to the tune of Rs.25,90,558/- as on 9.8.2023 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal,Orissa,Cuttack relating loan account No.37841796318. They admit that the complainant through his loan application dated 25.7.2018 had sought for a business loan for purchasing Ashok Leyland truck and accordingly a sum of Rs.28,50,000/- was sanctioned in his favour on 27.7.2018 and it was decided to repay the loan in 57 number of monthly instalments @ Rs.64,636/- and the last instalment was of Rs.59,309/- which was effective from 28.9.2018 till 28.6.2023. Accordingly Loan-Hypothecation Agreement was executed in-between the complainant and the O.P bank. During Covid-19 pandemic period, as per the application of the complainant the O.P bank had sanctioned additional loan to the tune of Rs.4,30,000/- in favour of the complainant for a period of 48 months. The complainant had executed the agreement with supplementary documents and hypothecated the said loan with the O.P bank to that effect on 16.7.2020. Subsequently when the complainant failed to deposit the instalment amount from 14.8.2022, his loan account became NPA on 14.11.2022. The O.P bank through it’s legal notice dated 17.12.2022 had asked the complainant to regularise his loan account and subsequently another letter to that effect was also issued by the O.P bank to the complainant on 11.3.2023. The complainant was further asked to produce the hypothecated vehicle for verification on 21.6.2023 but since when the complainant failed to comply FIR was lodged before the IIC,Kalinga Nagar P.S at Duburi on 13.7.2023. The complainant is to repay the entire dues including interest and other charges within 7 days of receiving the letter. But still when the complaint sat over the matter, on 25.8.2023 the O.P bank had filed an application bearing number 476 of 2023 against the complainant before the DRT,Odisha at Cuttack for recovery of the loan dues to the tune of Rs.25,90,558/- as on 9.8,2023. Accordingly, the O.P bank entrusted the matter to their Resolution Agent through letter dated 30.9.2023 for taking over possession of the secured assets and accordingly, the hypothecated vehicle in question was taken over. Subsequently, on 2.1.2024 sale notice was issued and the vehicle was put to sale. Accordingly, it is prayed by O.Ps no.1,2 & 3 through their written version to dismiss the complaint petition as filed it being not maintainable.
Alongwith their written version, O.Ps no.1,2 & 3 have also filed copies of several documents in order to support their stand.
O.P No.4 having not preferred to contest this case has been set exparte vide order dated 16.4.2024.
3. Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps no.1.2 & 3, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.
i. Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?
ii. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
iii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?
Issue no.I.
Out of the three issues, issue no.i being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.
On perusal of the complaint petition, written version, written notes of submission as filed from both sides as well as the copies of documents available in the case record, it is noticed that infact the contesting O.Ps those who had financed the complainant thereby enabling him to purchase one Ashok Leyland truck vide Registration No. OD-04M-0245 had sanctioned a loan of Rs.28,50,000/- in favour of the complainant and when the complainant defaulted in paying the regular EMIs, even though subsequent loan was provided to him, the O.P bank had preferred to file a petition before the DRT,Odisha at Cuttack on 25.8.2023 vide their Application no.476. As the said loan account of the complainant became NPA, they sought for recovery from the complainant of an amount of Rs.25,90,558/- as on 9.8.2023. The complainant when came to know about such petition being filed by the O.P bank before the DRT,Odisha at Cuttack, had approached this Commission with his petition on 6.3.2024. The complainant thus has known fully well that his loan account had become NPA since because he had defaulted and had not responded to the several letters/notices sent to him by the O.P bank. His vehicle was repossessed and was put to sale by issuing sale notice. Thus, the cunning attempt of the complainant to wriggle out from the liability towards the O.P bank by filing petition here in this case appears not to be maintainable. Accordingly, this pertinent issue is answered against the complainant of this case.
Issues no.ii & iii.
From the discussions as made above, when the complaint case of the complainant is not maintainable before this Commission, further discussion on the other issues is not necessary. Hence, it is so ordered;
ORDER
The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps no.1, 2 & 3 and exparte against O.P no.4 and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 26th day of July,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.
Sri Debasish Nayak
President
Sri Sibananda Mohanty
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.