DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK
Dated the 17th day of February, 2021
C.D Case No. 12 of 2020
Present 1. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Presiding Member
2. Afsara Begum, Member
Baidhar Muduli
S/O Late Tauli Muduli
Vill- Rukunadeipur,
Po-Padmapur, Ps- Basudevpur,
Dist: Bhadrak, Odisha
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1 State Bank of India, Basudevpur Branch
Represented through its Manager
At/Po/Ps- Basudevpur, Dist- Bhadrak
2 Regional Manager, State Bank of India
Unit- 3, Kharabela Nagar, Bhubaneswar
At/Po-Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda- 751001
3 Treasury Officer, Basudevpur
At/Po/Ps- Basudevpur, Dist- Bhadrak
4 State of Odisha,
Represented through its Collector, Bhadrak
At/Po/Ps/Dist- Bhadrak
…………… Opposite parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri A. K. Chand, Adv & Others
Counsel For the OP No. 1 : Sri J. K. Nayak, Adv
Counsel For the O.Ps No. 2, 3 & 4 : Ex-Parte
Date of hearing: 08.02.2021
Date of order: 17.02.2021
BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, PRESIDING MEMBER
The facts of the complaint are to the effect that the complainant is a retired school teacher who got his super annuation while working as a teacher at Andrei Harijan School and after retirement the complainant was getting his pension of Rs 15,613/- per month from the Govt. and with this scanty income, he was maintaining his family consisting of six members. The said pension is credited to the savings Bank Account No. 10790546894 maintained with OP No. 1 bank. The son of the complainant after completion of his graduation could not find a job to earn his livelihood and to manage their family. The only son of complainant namely Sri Trilochan Muduli was selected by the DIC Bhadrak as a beneficiary under Prime Minister Employment Guarantee Program to setup a cold store and accordingly the loan proposal was sponsored to OP No. 1 bank for providing required credit support of both Block Capital and Working Capital to run the cold store. But whatever amount was granted as Working Capital to the complainant’s son to carry on the business and the beneficiary (son of the complainant) requested OP No. 1 bank to sanction an additional limit of cash credit to carry on business smoothly. OP No. 1 insisted upon the complainant to apply for a cash credit accommodation on behalf of his son which was agreed by him. Accordingly OP No. 1 sanctioned a CC limit in favour of complainant which was secured by collateral security provided by the complainant in terms of immovable property. When the complainant failed to transact in the CC account properly due to damage caused to the plant and machinery and consequential damage of stock of perishable goods. Subsequently, due to non-payment of cash credit loan, OP No. 1 held up the pension account of the complainant as a result of which the complainant could not withdraw from his SB account to maintain his family. In this situation the complainant requested OP No. 1 to allow withdrawal from the pension account, but the OP No. 1 did pay any heed to his request. Being aggrieved with the attitude and behavior of OP No. 1 the complainant filed this case in this Commission praying for a direction to OP No. 1 to release entire pension amount from the date of holding up of the SB account along with cost and compensation.
OP No. 1 objected the claim and contested case. OP No. 2, 3 & 4 did not appear before the Commission nor submitted written version for which the O.Ps are set ex-parte. OP No. 1 in submitting the written version stated that the case is not maintainable in the present form and also raised the question of cause of action. The said OP also stated that Sri Trilochan Muduli being the Proprietor of M/s Baidhar Muduli cold storage has also filed two numbers of CD Cases vide No. 67/2019 & 72/2019 wherein OP No. 1 also a party to those cases. Besides above the complainant has also availed a pension loan vide loan account No. 37748488119 which has become overdue and the present loan outstanding is Rs 48,837/-. The complainant has also signed agreement authorizing the OP bank to deduct the loan installment amount from the SB account of the complainant by virtue of which the bank has deducted the loan amount from the said SB account. Hence the allegation brought in the complaint is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
Heard the parties to this case present at the time of hearing and perused materials on record. No material evidence is adduced by OP No. 1 as to the complainant has availed loan against his pension from the said OP bank. The settled position of law is that no one is authorized to holdup pension account of a pensioner which is required absolutely to maintain his livelihood and to maintain his family. In the instant case withholding the pension account of the complainant is illegal in the eyes of law. Secondly this Commission is astonished as to how a big amount of case credit accommodation was sanctioned in favour of the complainant who is not the proprietor of the cold storage nor is having any type of business that requires CC accommodation. Such action of OP No. 1 bank contravenes the faire practice of lending to any applicant. This clearly indicates that the OP bank has violated existing loan policy with malafide intention. It is also evident that the complainant has offered collateral security in executing mortgage bond which could have been attached and sold for realization of loan. Not allowing withdrawal to the complainant from the pension account is illegal and unfair. Therefore the bank is liable to reverse the amount credited to loan account by deducting from the pension account of the complainant so as to enable him to manage his family. Hence ordered;
ORDER
In the result, the complaint be and the same is allowed against OP No. 1 with cost. OP No. 1 is directed to reverse the amount credited to loan account of the complainant by way of deduction from his pension account and allow the complainant to withdraw from his pension account regularly. Further OP No. 1 is directed to pay Rs 2,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. The OP bank is liberty to adopt legal the recourse for recovery of loan so granted to the complainant. This order must be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of order.
This order is pronounced in the open Court on this day of 17th February, 2021 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
