Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/176/2022

Ranjit Nishad - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jun 2023

ORDER

                District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-07-10-2022

Date of final hearing-09-06-2023

 Date of Order-21-06-2023

Case No. 176/2022

Ranjit Nishad S/o Sri Hari Kishun Nishad

 Jaridih Bazar, East, Near Devi Mandap,

 P.S.- Gandhi Nagar, Jaridih Bazar, Bermo, Bokaro

Vs.

Chief Manager, State Bank of India

Phusro Bazar Branch, Meghdoot Market, Bank More

Phusro, Bokaro, 829144

 

 Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

Shri Bhawani Prasad Lal Das, Member

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-:Order:-

1. Complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased a truck bearing registration No. JH-09-AJ-2371 after obtaining loan on 15.11.2017 of Rs. 24,95,000/- for 5 years, from SBI Phusro branch vide loan A/c No. 37301066069 and EMI was Rs. 57,950/- per month . Further case is that apart from above loan complainant made down payment of Rs. 6,00,000/- for the same and till2-2½ years every thing was normal but meanwhile there was Corona pandemic since March 2020 hence vehicle was parked unplyed causing no earning and meanwhile O.P. bank started to send letters mounting pressure on the complainant to deposit loan amount with interest showing dues. After receipt of those letters complainant came to know that it is not a loan rather it has been sanctioned as EB-MSME-TC- Usual CR Dispe as term loan which was having more interest and inspite of request copy of loan agreement was not provided by the bank to the complainant. Inspite of request only total due amount was being intimated with threatening that if it is not deposited then possession of the vehicle will be taken over by the Bank but A/c detail was not being provided. Further case is that meanwhile complainant came to know that his loan account has been declared NPA on 24.06.2021 for non payment of three consecutive installments total Rs. 1,73,880/- and interest Rs. 44,000/- to which complainant was ready to deposit with condition related to removal of NPA but bank officials were pressurizing the complainant to deposit Rs. 18,38,648/- to which complainant has not deposited, hence in the month of July 2021 the truck of the complainant was taken away by the some unsocial elements who also taken away Rs. 22,000/- and articles of the truck without serving the copy of seizure list. Further case is that later on complainant came to know that in the month of Nov. 2021 the truck of the complainant has been auctioned by the O.Ps. on Rs. 13,00,100/- without knowledge of the complainant thereafter, he received letter of the DTO Bokaro hence he came to know that attempt for transfer of the ownership of the vehicle is being taken on the basis of forged papers hence he gave an application to the DTO for needful action hence said transaction was put in black list. In this way it is claimed that O.P. has caused wrongful loss to the complainant hence complainant is entitled to get back his vehicle and also to receive compensation.
2. W.S has been filed by the O.P. bank mentioning therein that loan for Rs. 24,95,000/- was sanctioned on 15.11.2017 in favour of the complainant and later on GECL of Rs. 3,93,000/- was also sanctioned on 01.06.2020 to the complainant but complainant was not regular in payment of loan inspite of repeated requests sent through letters, hence his both loan accounts classified as N.P.A. on 24.06.2021 with outstanding amount of Rs. 18,55,827/- in term loan and Rs. 4,26,019/- in GECL account hence bank was compelled to initiate proceeding for recovery of loan amount. Further reply is that inspite of several notices as well as legal notice to regularize the loan account complainant intentionally ignored it hence as per guidelines of the RBI the bank has seized the hypothecated vehicle and sold it through auction sale to the successful bidder on Rs. 13,00,101/- which has been credited in the term loan account of the complainant on 17.11.2021 and inspite of it Rs. 10,77,425.70 is still pending against the complainant who is habitual defaulter, against whom certificate case has also been filed before the Certificate Officer, Bermo at Tenughat, Distt. Bokaro, in this way there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P. rather case is liable to be dismissed.
3. Point for adjudication is whether complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed ?
4.  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties it appears that following facts are either admitted by the parties or not disputed by them:-

1. That complainant obtained loan of Rs. 24,95,000/- from the O.P. for purchase of the truck.
2. That O.P. has sanctioned said loan on 15.11.2017 accordingly truck No. JH-09-AJ/2371 was purchased in the name of complainant.
3. That said truck was hypothecated in favour of the O.P. Bank.
4. That complainant was not regular in payment of EMI to the Bank.
5. That loan account of the complainant became NPA.
6. That possession of the vehicle was taken away by the Bank.
7. That complainant was given opportunity by the bank to repay all dues with interest to which complainant failed to pay.
8. That said vehicle was later on put on auction sale.
9. That said vehicle was auctioned by the O.P. on Rs. 13,00101/-.

5. On perusal of the papers annexed with the complaint petition it appears that annexure-3 is registration certificate of the vehicle which is disclosing that vehicle concerned has been hypothecated in favour of the State Bank of India. In this way it appears that under the policy of hypothecation bank has acted in accordance with law and has taken possession of the vehicle in the month of July 2021 and later on it has been sold out during auction sale on 17.11.2021.  The papers filed by the O.P. shows that Certificate Case No. 5/2021-22 has been filed before the Certificate Officer-cum-S.D.M. Bermo at Tenughat, Distt.- Bokaro which bears signature of the Certificate Officer who has signed it on 10.12.2021. This case has been filed before this Commission on 07.10.2022 hence it is apparent that this case has been filed much after filing of the certificate case. As per O.P. apart from the loan of Rs. 24,95,000/- GECL loan of Rs. 3,93,000/- was also provided to the complainant on 01.06.2020 about which complaint petition is silent. In this way complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands.
6. Complainant has examined his driver as witness No.1 who states during cross-examination at para 6,7 that he does not know whether the loan was irregular since long and he has not filed any FIR regarding seizure of the vehicle. Complainant has been examined as witness No.2 he states that he is not aware whether he has signed the agreement paper of GECL. Further he states that loan became NPA it was not known to him. Further he states that bank has taken away the vehicle without permission it has not been intimated to the Police Station.
7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of judicature at Patna passed in Civil writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3456/2021 decided on 19.05.2023. It is apparent from the facts of the case in hand that the facts and circumstance of the above mentioned writ petition and the facts and circumstance of this case are different hence it is not helpful for the complainant.
8. On careful perusal of the entire record it appears that prayer of the complainant is liable to be rejected on the ground that after filing of the certificate case complainant has filed this case before this Commission and he has not challenged the procedure adopted in auction sale of the truck concerned before any competent authority. Further on the ground that this Commission is having no jurisdiction to decide the legality of the auction sale made by the Bank under relevant provision of law and further this Commission is having no jurisdiction to deprive the bonafide auction purchaser with lawful payment. There is no any evidence on record to show that how bank is deficient in service in this case.
9. In light of above discussion we are of the view that there is no any deficiency on the part of the O.P. and case is liable to be dismissed on merit. Accordingly this case is being dismissed on merit with cost.

                                                                                                                                                                                                              S/d

J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

 

 S/d

(B.P.L Das)

   Sr. Member

                                                                            

          S/d                  

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

                                                                                       Member