DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 25th day of September, 2017
C.D.Case No.77 of 2014
Sri Sudarsan Das
S/o Late Paramananda Das
At: Solagan
Po: Bandhatia
Ps: Dhamangar
Dist: Bhadrak.
……………………. Complainants
(Versus)
State Bank of India
Sarasada Branch
Represented by its Branch Manager
At/Po: Sarasada
Ps: Bhandaripokhari
Dist: Bhadrak
………………………..Opp. Parties
For the Complainant: Sri R.K Nayak & Associates
For Opposite Parties: Sri Jaminikanta Nayak
Date of hearing : 19.04.2017
Date of order : 25.09.2017
SRI BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
This dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainants alleging deficiency of service.
The back ground facts disclosed in the complaint are to the effect that the complainant is the son and legal heir of deceased Paramananda Das who passed away on 03.03.2008. Before the sad demise of the farther of the complainant, he had availed a tractor loan of Rs 3,00,000/- on 21.10.2003 from State Bank of India, Sarasada Branch on execution of required documents under the instruction of the Branch Manager of said Branch. Moreover, the deceased borrower had also executed an equitable mortgage deed creating charges on the landed property in favour of the bank to secure the loan and also submitted ROR, Regd. sale deed, rent receipts etc to the Bank. As the said loan was long term in nature, the deceased borrower went on repaying the loan as per repayment schedule but suddenly died in the year 2008. After demise of the borrower, complainant, being his legal successor, also went on repaying the loan till final closer of the loan account on 28.08.2012. After full and final payment, the complainant requested the OP to release the documents pertaining to landed property deposited with the said bank as collateral security but OP did not respond the complainant instantly in stating that the said documents are not traceable and assured to send the documents by registered post within a fortnight or so. Relying on the oral version of the OP and awaiting for a period of a couple of months, complainant visited OP, time and again, to get back his documents but to no avail. Simultaneously complainant has also requested the OP to allow with drawl of balance outstanding in the savings bank account of his deceased father which is also not responded by OP. Being disappointed and aggrieved with the attitude and behavior of OP, complainant submitted a written application on 31.07.2014, which is marked received by the OP, requesting release of documents.
Awaiting for a couple of months to get a positive response from the OP, complainant was constrained to file this dispute alleging willful negligence in providing proper service to the complainant as a costumer and prayed for a direction to be issued to the OP to release the documents, to allow with drawl from the SB account of his deceased father along with compensation and cost.
OP resisted the claim and contested the case. In the written statement filed by OP it is raised that this dispute need to be dismissed as it comes under bared by limitation. It is also objected by the OP that the complainant has not specified the documents he intends to get back nor the legal heirs of the deceased borrower have applied the OP to withdraw the balance amount from the savings account of the deceased borrower.
Admittedly the complainant is the son and legal heir of deceased Paramananda Das who borrowed tractor loan of Rs 3,00,000/- on 21.10.2003 from OP Bank and died on 03.03.2008. It is also admitted that the complainant, being the son & legal heir of deceased borrower, has paid all the residual loan dues to OP for final closer of the loan account. Leaving aside the above facts all other allegations of complainant have been disputed.
1. The complainant has alleged to have repaid entire loan amount outstanding in the loan account of his deceased father who died on 03.03.2008. As on the date of demise of the father of complainant more than 50% of the amount advanced together with interest was outstanding in the loan account which has been repaid by the complainant in installments and the final payment was made on 28.08.2012 for closer of the said loan account. On the date of final payment was made to the loan account, complainant orally requested the OP to get back the land documents deposited with the OP to secure the loan but the OP refused to comply instantly as it would be difficult to trace out the documents and also assured the complainant to return the documents by post within a fortnight. Relying on the assurance of OP, complainant awaited for a period of about 2 to 3 months and personally contacted the OP bank several times to get back his documents but the OP did not return the documents to complainant fixing too many further dates to make over the aforesaid papers. During hearing it is disclosed by the complainant that due to irresponsiveness of the OP to release the aforesaid documents, complainant deprived of availing loan for cultivation of short term crop which adversely effected to earn his lively hood and to maintain his family as the complainant is totally dependent on agriculture. Finally, the complainant with a written submission on dt. 31.07.2014, (Being personally present in the office of OP) requested the OP to return the land documents which was also responded in the same manner as responded previously and assured him verbally to give back the same within a week by post but did not do so even after lapse of two months.
On the contrary the counsel for OP submitted that the complainant has not made any request specifying the documents he requires from the OP bank as a result of which OP was undone to make over the documents.
Heard both the parties and perused materials on record. The Forum observed that the complainant has requested the OP bank to return the land documents which were pledged by the deceased borrower with the bank to secure the loan. A man of ordinary prudence can also understand about the requirements of complainant and what are the land documents he wants to get back from the OP. Secondly the OP, neither in the written version nor through his submission during hearing, has refuted to have received the land documents what are claimed by the complainant to be returned. This clearly indicates that the OP is intentionally avoiding to make over the documents for the reason best know to him, which is considered as gross negligence of the opposite party and such negligence amounts to deficiency of service by the OP.
2. The counsel for OP submitted that the dispute is coming under “Bared by limitation” taking the last date of payment of loan in to account. As the complainant has made full and final payment on 28.08.2012, the cause of action starts from the said date according to which this case was to be filed on or before 27.08.2014. But in reality the complainant has filed this disputes on 30.09.2014 which fails within the meaning of “Barred by limitation” under the provisions of C.P Act.
In contradicting the above submission of OP, complainant submitted during hearing of the case that despite repeated verbal approach and request made by complainant, OP turned a deaf ear which compelled the complainant to submit in writing on 31.07.2014 for release of the land documents. Although the cause of action started on 28.08.2012, the learned counsel for OP has not taken the successive dates into consideration when the complainant finally requested to OP, through written submission on dt. 31.07.2014 to release the documents. The OP has also acknowledged receipt of the written submission and as such 31.07. 2014 is to be taken as the date of cause of action. Accordingly this dispute does not come under barred by limitation as per settled provisions of law.
Perused the materials on record and heard both the parties. The cause of action as has been pleaded by the complainant is found genuine and correct. The points raised by the counsel of OP do not hold good in the present context. Taking the above facts in to consideration, the Forum is of the opinion that this dispute does not come under “Barred by limitation”.
3. Complainant alleges that his deceased father had a saving bank account bearing number 01190006269 maintained with OP bank having a credit balance of Rs 1623/-. The legal heirs of the deceased account holder Paramananda Das intended to draw the amount from the account and on the advice of OP, complainant has deposited death certificate, deed of indemnity, consent-cum-no objection letter, consent letter and affidavit with the OP Bank on 13.03.2013 but the OP did not allow withdrawal from the account on the same day. On the other hand OP submitted the complainant has not requested to withdraw the amount from the saving account of his deceased father and when ever complainant & other legal heirs have not complied the legal formalities, it is not practically possible to allow withdrawal to the complainant.
On perusal of materials on record it is observed that the complainant and other legal heirs of the deceased depositor have complied all legal formalities as advised and OP negligently caused in ordinate delay in allowing withdrawal from the saving account, amounts to deficiency of service.
In view of the facts and circumstances narrated as above and considering the submission/pleadings of both the parties OP is found deficient in providing proper service to the complainant. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is allowed against OP on contest with cost. OP is directed to return the land documents which were pledged against the loan to the complainant and also directed to pay a sum of Rs 3,000/- as compensation & Rs 2,000/- as cost of litigation. It is further directed that the OP shall allow withdrawal of the amount matching to the balance outstanding in the SB account bearing number 01190006269 held with OP bank to the complainant & other legal heirs observing all legal formalities. This order needs to be complied by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of order on failingly.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on the 25th day of September, 2017 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
