Orissa

Rayagada

CC/79/2016

Ghasiram Saraka - Complainant(s)

Versus

Suresh Chandra Saraka - Opp.Party(s)

K.A Ramachandram

21 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 79 / 2016.                                  Date.    21     .     6  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                             Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri   Ghasiram   Saraka,   S/O: Late Basana  Sarka, Rivalkana, Gadiseskhal,     Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).                                          …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.Sri  Suresh Chandra  Saraka, S/O: Ghasiram Saraka , Rivolkona, Gadiseskhal,     Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).                        

2.The  Branch Manager, State Bank of India, A.D.B, Po/ Dist: Rayagada.      .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri Biswanath Gantayat, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps   :- Sri  N.N.Panda, Advocate, Rayagada.

.

JUDGMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non closing  the loan account under One Time Scheme  inter alia without imposing penal interest for which  the complainant  sought compensation  for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

       On being noticed the O.P No.1 neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version though availing  of more than  25  adjournments. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayed to set exparte of the O.P No.1.  Observing lapses of around two years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing from  the   complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No.1. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P No.1 was  set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.      

 

On being noticed the O.P No.2  appeared through their learned counsel and filed written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P   No. 2  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P. No.2. Hence the O.P  No .2   prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.P No.2 and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

Undisputedly the complainant  is  the father of the O.P. No.1   and  he was nominated  as  Guarantor  towards  loan availed by the  O.P. No.1      a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- from the bank on Dt. 20.3.2006 for his agricultural purpose for living in the society and purchased one Tractor bearing Regd. No.  OR-18A-4026  and Trolley No. OR-18A-4027.  Admittedly the  O.P. No.1  was a  defaulter for  payment of  E.M.I. to the O.P. No.2  (bank)  in time.

The main grievance of the  complainant is that  the O.P.  No.2 (Bank) has imposed interest and penal interest  against the above loan  and  the O.P.  No.2(Bank) has exaggerated the claim. So the complainant  asked the O.P. No.2 (Bank)  to make a One time  settlement  of his claim  leaving the penal interest, and also to reduce the interest claimed by the O.P,  No. 2 (Bank) so that one time settlement  may not cause any financial burden to the complainant.

The O.P.   No.2 (bank) in their written version asserted that  the O.P. No.1  was  made an application to purchase a Tractor and the same was sanctioned  on Dt. 20.3.2006. The No.1  was executed a loan agreement and hypothecation agreement  and the complainant Sri Ghasiram Saraka   executed guarantee agreement in favour of the bank of the O.P. No.1  had taken a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- towards purchase of Tractor  in  the  name   O.P. No. 1  and the same was registered  OR-18A-4026  and Trolley No. OR-18A-4027.

The O.P. No.2 Bank) in their written version in para No. 2  contended  that  the  complainant is the father of the O.P. No.1. The Guarantor is equally liable  with the borrower to pay the loan dues. After getting the service  benefits  the complainant has not cleared the dues knowingly  only to grab  money of the  bank.    Neither the complainant nor the O.P. No.1 has not approached the bank for One time settlement. Rather the bank has written letters to the  barrower and Guarantor  to settle  the loan dues under O.T.S scheme of the bank.  The O.T.S. scheme is still in force till June, 2016 so the forum may direct the complainant to settle the loan dues under O.T.S scheme. 

The O.P. No.2(Bank)  in their written version in para No. 3  contended  that  the complainant had executed the loan document as a Guarantor  and taken the loan by the O.P. No.1 for his cultivation purpose and paid some of the installments but not regularly as per the norms of the bank.  For the balance amount the bank filed a suit before the court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Rayagada against   the O.P. No.1  and the  complainant and it is pending.

The O.P.  No.2 (bank) in their written version in para No. 4  contended  that  the  complainant is not a consumer the Debtor and Creditor relationship shall not create the status of the consumer  held in  CPR- 1992(1) page No. 86, State commission, Rajastan.   Further this forum  has no jurisdiction   to try the case.

The O.P.  No.2 (bank) in their written version in para No. 8  contended  that  parallel proceeding before Civil Court  and  before the  District Consumer Forum  on the same subject matter can  not  go  together.  In other wards, if the fact of two cases one pending  before the Civil Court and other before the Consumer Forum  are  the same, the latter should not  exercise jurisdiction as the matter  is subjudice C.P.R-447 (N.C) New Delhi 1991,  CPJ-23(NC) New Delhi.

For the above case   this  the forum  relied citation of the Hon’ble  National Commisision, State  Commission.

It is held and reported  in CPR 2015(1) page No. 228  where in the hon’ble  National Commission observed  “A matter  which is pending before Civil Court, should not be raised before Consumer Forum”. When  the matter is pending at  Civil Court on the same cause of action, this forum can not and will not entertain any claim  in respect of the identical subject matter in the present case.

          Further  It is well settled  that the matter can not be decided  by Consumer Forum  wnen the civil suit is  pending  in  the civil court in same of cause action L.T. Coal A.J. AnandVrs.  The Manager, Indian Bank, Chandigarh and others 1991 CPJ  Page No. 157 Delhi  State C.D.R.Commission.

 

          Again The Hon’ble State C.D.R.Commission, Odisha, Cuttack  in Mrs. Jayasri Mishra Vrs. SBI in which it is held that the same having been sub-judice  at the Civil  Court, It is not permissible to enter  in to the same issue by the Consumer  Forum. Held  1995-CLT –OSC-14 which is decided 5.9.1995.

 

          Further Section 2(1)©- Complaint- no complaint where the matter has been sub-judice at Civil  court, can not reagitated.. Held in M/S. Kishsangarh Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Gujarat State Financial Corp. in 1991  CPJ 103 (NCDRC),New Delhi.

 

          Again  it is held and reported in CPJ 1991 (1) page No.78  where in the Hon’ble  National Commission observed   “As a matter  of policy and principle that where in the subject matter of a  complaint is sub-judice  before the  Civil Court,  a concurrent adjudication in respect of  the same  will not be conducted by the commission under the Act,  the objection  is not really  on the ground  of lack of jurisdiction  but one based on consideration of propriety and prudence keeping  in view  of   the  necessity for avoidance of conflicting  decisions and multiplicity  of proceeding” .

 

          This forum have  gone  through the documents submitted by the  O.P. No.2 (Bank) in respect of the case being taken up  by the Hon’ble  Civil Court,  Sr. Division,  Rayagada. Since the matter is sub-judice, it is beyond   our jurisdiction to adjudicate  upon the merits of the  complaint petition.  So the complaint petition is liable to be  dismissed.

          In the light of the aforesaid  judgements, it becomes clear that complaint petition is not maintainable before the  forum.

          We  are   not going to the merits of the matter and express   no opinion in respect  of the same for deciding the points raised by the complainant. 

                                                                                ORDER.

                 In   resultant  the complaint petition  stands  dismissed but without cost.

The interim order passed by this forum on Dt. 20.05.2016  made final with the above observation.  Serve the copies of the  above order  to the parties free of cost.

Dictated  and corrected by me.     Pronounced on this         21st.             day     of      June,       2018.

 

Member                             Member.                                                         President

 

 

            .

 

 

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.