DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

                                                               CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 18 OF 2017

Saukilal Majhi ( 62 Years),

S/O: Late Bihari Majhi,

R/O/PO: Sunari, PS: Lakhanpur,

Dist- Jharsuguda, Odisha……………………………………………..Complainant.

                                           Versus 

1. Simon Dungdung, Branch Manager,

Andhra Bank, Adhapada Branch,

PS: Banharpali, Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha,

At Present transferred to Andra Bank,Rourkela Branch,

Dist: Sundargarh, Odisha.

2. Branch Manager, Union Bank of India,Brajrajnagar Branch,

At/PO/PS: Brajrajnagar, Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha.

3. Purnima Pandey,

Prop. of Pandey General store,

IG. N Road, Brajrajnagar,

PO/PS: Brajrajnagar, Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha.

4. Banamali Kalo,

S/O: Ram Gopal Kalo,

R/O: Sunari, Tangarpali, PS: Lakhanpur,

Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha.…….………………..................... Opp. Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                               Self

For the Opp. Party No. 1                       Sri A.K.Urma,Adv. & Associates

For the Opp. Party No.2                        None (Ex-Parte).

For the Opp. Party No. 3 & 4                 Sri B.B.Barai,Adv. & Associates.

Date of Order: 21.08.2016

Present  

                                                                                 1. Shri S.L. Behera, President.

                                                                                 2. Shri S.K.Ojha, Member.

                                                                                3. Smt. A.Nada, Member(W).

Shri S.L. Behera, President : -  The Consumer  complaint in brief is that, the complainant had applied a loan under Pradhanmantry Mudra Yojana scheme before the O.P.No.1, where the O.P.No.1/Bank sanctioned loan of Rs.35,000/- only on behalf of O.P.No.3 as per quotation filed.  Being asking complainant, the O.P.No.1 returned the rest loan amount  of Rs.15,000/- only and Rs.5,000/- only towards security deposit received from the complainant.  The complainant alleges that the O.P.No.3 and O.P.No.4 have submitted quotation to the O.P.No.1 whereas the O.P.No.1 provided Rs.35,000/- in favour of O.P.No.3 in absence of the complainant.   On request of complainant the O.P.No.3 and O.P.No.4 given Rs.14,000/- only to the complainant on different dates and the rest amount is still due  with the O.P.No.3, hence this case.

            The O.Ps. appeared through their counsels except the O.P.No.2 who stand ex-parte.  The O.P.No.1 submitted that, they have rightly transferred the loan amount of Rs.30,000/- only and Rs.5,000/- only as margin money in favour of O.P.No.3 as per quotation filed by O.P.No.3.  The O.P.No.3 and O.P.No.4 jointly submitted that the complainant has requested to them to give a quotation to bank for obtaining of loan, where the O.P.No.3 & 4 given quotation to the O.P.No.1.  After receiving Rs.35,000/- only the O.P.No.3 & 4 paid Rs.14,000/- only as cash and provided goods of Rs.21,000/- only. The O.Ps. prayed for dismissal of case.

            Heard from the parties, perused the documents available on record. The complainant applied loan on Pradhanmantry Mudra Yojana before the O.P.No.1 where the O.P.No.1 sanctioned loan of Rs.50,000/- only and transferred Rs.35,000/- only in favour of O.P.No.3 on the strength of quotation filed by O.P.No.3.  The O.P.No.1 paid rest loan amount of Rs.15,000/- only along with Rs. 5,000/- only receipt towards security amount from the complainant i.e. in total Rs.20,000/- only to the complainant.  The complainant alleges that the O.P.No.1 given Rs.35,000/- only without his knowledge on which the O.P.No.3 & 4 submitted that they have given Rs.14,000/- cash and given goods of Rs.21,000/- only but as per the bill issued by the O.P.No.3 amounting Rs.35,000/- only infavour of the complainant bearing No. 83 dtd.24.04.2016 which reflects that the O.P.No.3 has given goods worth Rs.35,000/- only.  On the other hand the O.P.No.3 &4 submitted as per version that, they have given goods of Rs.21,000/- only and cash paid Rs.14,000/- only to the complainant.

            On the above mentioned observations and analysis it is found that the O.P.No.3 & 4 adopted unfair trade practice towards the complainant. Hence the complaint petition is hereby allowed directing the O.P.No.3 & 4 jointly and severally to pay Rs.21,000/-( Rupees twenty one thousand) only along with pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- ( Two thousand) only towards mental agony, harassment including litigation costs to the complainant within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.P.No.3 & 4 shall be liable for  interest @ 10% per annum on the abovementioned awarded amounts till realization.   

Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today the 21^st day of August’ 2017 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule. 

          I Agree.                                       I Agree.                                                                                          

1. Nanda, Member( W)               S.K.Ojha, Member              S. L. Behera, President                 

Dictated and corrected by me

      S. L. Behera, President.