View 13556 Cases Against State Bank Of India
View 13556 Cases Against State Bank Of India
View 24612 Cases Against Bank Of India
View 24612 Cases Against Bank Of India
Prahallad Rana filed a consumer case on 29 Jul 2015 against State Bank of India in the Jajapur Consumer Court. The case no is CC/65/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 04 Aug 2015.
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.
Present: 1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President,
2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,
3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.
Dated the29th day of July,2015.
C. C. Case No.65 of 2014
Prahallad Rana, S/O Mangu Rana
At . Tikarpada, P.O-Darkundi,
Dist.- Jajpur. ……………..Complainant . (Versus)
1.State Bank of India, Kuakhia Branch, At.-Kuakhia, P.O-Rasulpur, Dist.-Jajpur.
2.Dy. General Manager, Grievance Redressal Officer, Net-work-1, State Bank
Of India, Local Head office, J. N. Marg, Bhubaneswar.
………………Opp.Parties.
For the Complainant: Sri B.N.Panda, Advocate.
For the Opp. Party No.1: Sri P.K.Daspattnaik, Advocate.
For the Opp. Party No.2 : None.
Date of order : 29. 07. 2015.
SHRI BIRAJA PRASAD KAR, PRESIDENT.
Deficiency in service is the grievance of the complainant.
Briefly stated, the facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant being a cultivator availed a loan under Agriculture Scheme from the O.P no.1 vide loan A/C No.31517122309. The complainant used to pay the EMIs regularly. But due to high flood and natural calamities the complainant could not pay the loan dues for which he had filed representations to the O.Ps. to waive the loan dues as per Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme-2008. The bank issued notices to the complainant on 07.10.2011 and 10.01.2014 for non payment of dues without considering the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme-2008 which is arbitrary, illegal and amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.. Hence the complainant has filed this dispute with the prayer to direct the O.Ps. to waive the loan dues of the complainant as per Debt Relief Scheme.
Notice was issued against the O.Ps. O.P no.1 appeared through his advocate and filed their written version . But the O.P no.2 did not choose to contest the case by filing written version for which he has been set-exparte on 07.02.15.
O.P no.1 filed his written version denying the allegations made in the complaint petition and inter alia pleaded that the complainant is an agriculturist by his profession and to carry on his agricultural operation in the year 2010 approached the O.P. Bank for financial assistance, to purchase Tractor, Trolley etc. and assessing his requirements O.P. Bank on 27.02.10 sanctioned an amount of Rs.6,60,000/- in shape of agricultural term loan in favour of the complainant. It is has been mutually agreed that the term loan would carry interest @13.60% per annum with half yearly rest and the complainant has to repay the loan outstanding on 18th half yearly installment of Rs.63,756/- and the first installments would be due from 31.05.11. On the above cited term and condition, complainant executed different security documents in favour of the O.P Bank . Besides those facts, the complainant by way of further more security created an equitable mortgage in favour of the O.P Bank. After due execution of security documents and creation of equitable mortgage, money was advanced to the complainant for purchase of Tractor, Trolley ,etc to carry on his agricultural operation. Accordingly the complainant has purchased it and utilized it for his own agricultural operation and made profit out of it. But deliberately he did not repay the outstanding loan amount as shown in the statement of A/C. Hence on different occasions O.P Bank served notice/ notices and made personal contact to him for repayment of his installments / outstanding loan amount. Unfortunately the complainant failed to regularize his loan account. More or less the complainant last time on 29.12.12 has repaid the installment in his loan account, since then he has not repaid any single amount in his loan Account.
The complainant has availed loan in the year 2010 and the debt waiver / relief scheme sponsored by the Government of India is of year 2008. Hence the complainant is no way illegible to avail any benefit under the scheme. Hence on a wrongful assumption the present complainant has filed this suit to harass this O.P. There is no negligence on the part of this O.P. Hence the C.C. Case is liable to be dismissed.
On the date of hearing we have heard arguments from the advocates. Perused the pleadings and documents available on record.
Basing on the pleadings ,facts and circumstances of the case and arguments we have perused the debt waiver and debt relief scheme-2008. As per agricultural debt waiver and debt relief scheme,2008, for eligibility of debt waiver loan must have been disbursed up to 31.03.2007 and had to be over due as on 31.12.2007 and must have remained unpaid till 29.02.2008. In the present case neither loan was disbursed up to 31.03.2007 nor did it be come over due on 31.03.2007. As such waiver of Debt Relief Scheme-2008 is not applicable to the complainant’s loan which was taken / disbursed on 29.11.10 ( as per the statement of accounts of the complainant’s loan filed by O.P.) . Hence the C.C. Case is liable to be dismissed.
O R D E R
Resultantly, the consumer complaint is dismissed without any costs.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th day of July ,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.
(Shri Pitabas Mohanty) (Shri Biraja Prasad Kar)
Member. President.
Typed to my dictation & corrected by me
(Miss Smita Ray) ( Shri Biraja Prasad Kar )
Member. President.
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.