Orissa

Bargarh

CC/27/2022

SUNANDA PARIDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syndicate Bank, later taken over by Canara Bank represented through its Branch Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri S. Panda, Advocate with Associates.

12 Mar 2024

ORDER

Date of filing:- 08/09/2022.

Date of Order:-12/03/2024.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

B A R G A R H (ODISHA).

Consumer Complaint No. 27 of  2022.

            Sunanda Parida, aged about 48 (forty eight) years, wife of Dinesh Kumar Mahanta, presently residing at Kapileswar Nagar, Bargarh, Ps. Bargarh (Town) Po/Dist. Bargarh.                                                   .....       .....     .....                   Complainant.

-: V e r s u s :-

            Syndicate Bank, later taken over by Canara Bank represented through its Branch Manager, near Private Bus Stand, Bargarh, Po/Ps. Bargarh and Dist. Bargarh.

                                                                             .....       .....       .....         Opposite Party.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :-            Sri D.Mishra, Advocate with associates.

For the Opposite Party  :-                    Sri A.K.Dash, Advocate with associates.

                                                            -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Smt. Jigeesha Mishra               .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Smt. Anju Agrawal             .....            .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.12/03/2024.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, Member(w):-

1)         The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant availed a loan from the Opposite Party in the year 2016 to purchase a bus to maintain her livelihood which she was to repay in 78(seventy eight) EMIs of Rs. 56,752/-(Rupees fifty six thousand seven hundred fifty two)only each. For the vehicle loan an account bearing No. 80149910000127 was opened in the name of the Complainant. The Complainant continued to pay the EMIs against the vehicles loan till 27-12-2019. The engine of the bus was damaged on 20-07-2019 and the bus could not ply giving any income, the Complainant could not continue to pay the EMIs after 27-12-2019. The Complainant managed to ply the bus and has been paying the EMIs regularly to the Opposite party w.e.f. 01-12-2021. In the process she has paid a total sum of Rs. 4,15,000/-(Rupees four lakh fifteen thousand)only during the period from 01-12-2021 to 29-07-2022. The vehicle was never financed against any property of the Complainant and no property was mortgaged against the said loan. But the Opposite Party bank is threatening the Complainant to sell away the house property of the Complainant against the vehicle loan. The government had offered some financial help namely Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line (GECL) to small and medium class business people which the Complainant had never availed. But from the notice issued by the Opposite Party the Complainant learns that the banker had availed said financial help from the Government of its own without the knowledge information and consent of the Complainant and the bank is now claiming the same from the Complainant. In the meantime the Complainant received notices dt. 11-08-2022 and 20-08-2022 from the Opposite Party demanding the Complainant to pay the entire loan at a time outstanding against her including the amount the financial help from Government which the Opposite Party had unilaterally availed without the knowledge and consent of the Complainant. In the said notice the Opposite Party has threatened to take possession of  the house of the Complainant which was never mortgaged against the vehicle loan. Hence the Complainant filed this case before this Commission.

           

2)         The case of the Opposite Party is that the Opposite Party filed its version. The Opposite Party admitted that the Complainant has taken the commercial vehicle loan of rupees thirty lakhs and purchased the bus bearing Regd No. OD-17-J-5005. As per the sanction letter dt. 20-08-2016, the Complainant has to pay the loan in 78(seventy eight) EMIs of Rs. 56,752/-(Rupees fifty six thousand seven hundred fifty two)only. The Complainant has duly executed the composite hypothecation agreement on dt. 20-08-2016 in favour of the Opposite Party. But the Complainant has not duly paid a single EMI from the beginning till now. With the consent of the Complainant the loan outstanding was restructured on 31-12-2020. As per restructured scheme the Complainant agreed to repay the loan amount with interest in 48(forty eight) equated monthly installment of Rs. 65,367.18/-(Rupees sixty five thousand three hundred sixty seven and eighteen paise)only. A copy of restructured sanction letter with a copy of the loan repayment schedule was received by the Complainant on 31^st December 2020. But till now the Complainant has not paid a single installment. Due to non payment of the EMI the amount has became N.P.A.. The outstanding amount in the loan account is Rs. 19,69,638.53/-(Rupees nineteen lakh sixty nine thousand six hundred thirty eight and fifty three paise)only upto 31-08-2022. After the order of this Commission the Complainant has deposited Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only in her loan account on dt. 12-09-2022 and the Opposite Party has complied the order by delivering the said vehicle to the Complainant. But the Complainant has intentionally failed to comply the order dated 08-09-2022, to pay the normal installments in time. In spite of due approach and demand of the Opposite Party the Complainant violated to repay the EMI as per her agreement. There is no any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the case.

 

3)         Perused the complaint petition, version and documents filed by the Parties and  and following issues are framed.

Issues

1. Whether the Opposite Party is deficient in service ?

       2)    Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief ?

 

Issue No.1(one)

4)         After perusal of record it reveals that the complaint petition is not supported with affidavit and the Complainant has not submitted any document except the receipt of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only of dt. 08-09-2022. It is the admitted fact that the Complainant has availed a loan of Rs. 30,00,000/-(Rupees thirty lakh)only from the Opposite Party to purchase a bus. It is the duty of the borrower to pay the EMI regularly and repay the loan amount. But in the present case no any document was filed by the Complainant which shows that the Complainant is paying EMI regularly. The Complainant is a defaulter. Hence the Opposite Party has no any deficiency. The issue is answered accordingly

Issue No.2(two)

            As there is no any deficiency on the part of Opposite Party, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief. The issue is answered accordingly.

            As per supra discussion the following order is passed.

                                                            O  R  D  E  R

6)         The Complaint is dismissed against the Opposite party.

            Order pronounced in the open court on 12^th March 2024.

            Supply free copies to the Parties.

 

                                                                                             Typed to my dictation

                                                                                              and corrected by me.

                                                                                                     

                                    I agree,                                              ( Smt.Jigeesha Mishra)

                                                                                                    P r e s i d e n t.

                       (Smt. Anju Agrawal)

                             M e m b e r(w).