For the O.P.:- Sri S.K.Agrawal, Advocate, Bhawanipatna.
ORDER.
The present dispute arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service against the afore said O.P for not allow the complainant to make unconditional transactions from the S.B account . The brief facts of the case is briefly summarised hereunder.
1. The complainant is an account holder of the O.P. having S.B. account No.106110100013320. The complainant has received the compensation amount from the court of the Commissioner for Employee’s compensation and Asst. Labour Commissioner, Bhubaneswar and had deposited the same amount on Dt.27.4.2002 in his S.B. A/c by the Hon’ble Court of the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation and Asst. Labour Commissioner,Bhawanipatna. After some transactions, surprisingly the complainant has been restricted by the O.P. to make any further transaction from his own S.B. account by giving some unrealistic and whimsical ground i.e. the complainant is a guarantor for the loan amount taken by his brother. The complainant is neither a guarantor at any point of time nor has he executed any documents before the concerned O.P. In the meanwhile the O.P. with malafide intention, has taken signature from the complainant in a paper, later he converted into some actionable document. Please note that signature signifies the consent of the party and here in this case the complainant, being an illiterate person belonging to S.C. community having no idea about any actionable document, has never given his consent for such unrealistic ground taken by the O.P. Hence this case filed by the complainant before the forum for redressal of his grievance . The complainant prays the forum direct the O.P. to allow the complainant to make unconditional transactions from his S.B. account and further prays such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.
2. On being noticed the O.P. appeared and filed written version through their learned counsel. The O.P. submitted that one Haldar Bag has availed a loan from the O.P. for his unit M/S. Maa Mauli Chuda &Rice Mill situated at village Kerokuda and in order to avail the said loan the borrower Haldar Bag has executed some security documents such as composite agreement as per banking norms and agreed to abide by the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It is further submitted that the complainant being the brother has stood as a guarantor and has executed a Covenants of Co-obligant on dtd. 29.3.2011 and assured the bank of due repayment of all the liabilities under the agreement and to pay jointly and severally with the borrower’s amount as and when due. It is further stipulated in the aforesaid covenants of co-obligants that the term and condition shall be irrevocable and be enforceable against him until duly cancelled by the Bank. It is further submitted that the borrower has availed the loan in the year 2011 wherein the complainant has stood as guarantor and has executed a Covenants of Co-obligant and by that time the complainant has not deposited any money with the bank and as such there is no scope for the O.P. to take the signature of the complainant in some paper. The complainant being the brother of the borrower executed a covenant of co-obligant and assured the bank due repayment of the loan amount and has also agreed that he will be jointly and severally liable for the repayment of the loan. That when the borrower did not repay the loan as agreed upon finding no other way the O.P. exercised his right of general lien and fridged the account of the complainant and stopped the operation on temporary basis so that he will give pressure on the borrower to repay the loan. As per the Section-128 of the contract Act surety’s liability is co-extensive with that of the borrower and as such there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. The O.P. prays to dismiss the case against the O.P. for the best interest of justice.
The O.Ps have appeared and filed their written version. Arguments from the the O.Ps and from the complainant heard. Perused the record, documents, filed by the parties.
The learned counsels for the O.Ps. and complainant vehemently advanced arguments touching the points both on the facts as well as on law.
FINDINGS.
3. On perusal of the record it is revealed that there is no dispute from both the parties that the complainant has one S.B. account bearing No. 106110100013320.
On perusal of the written version filed by the O.P. it is revealed that the O.P. contended that one Haldar Bag has availed a loan from the O.P. for his unit M/S. Maa Mauli Chuda & Rice Mill situated at village Kerokuda and in order to avail the said loan the borrower Haldar Bag has executed some security documents such as composite agreement as per banking norms and agreed to abide by the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The O.P. further contended that the complainant being the brother has stood as a guarantor and has executed a Covenants of Co-obligant on dtd. 29.3.2011 and assured the bank of due repayment of all the liabilities under the agreement and to pay jointly and severally with the borrower’s amount as and when due. . As per the Section-128 of the contract Act surety’s liability is co-extensive with that of the borrower and as such there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.
On perusal of the S.B. passbook bearing No.106110100013320 of the complainant we find there is balance as on Dt. 13.11.2015 a sum of Rs. 26,761.00.
We observed Sri Haldar Bag brother of the complainant till date not cleared the loan account No.106130100003819 who availed loan from the O.P.
From the statement of account we find that the amount for workmen compensation to the tune of Rs.78,274/- was credited to the account of the complainant on Dt.27.4.2012 and the complainant has withdrawn the amount on several dates and has only balance of Rs.26,761/- till 1.9.2015 for which it is revealed that he has already utilized most of the amount received from the commissioner of workmen. We also found that the complainant has appended his signature in bank document on convents of the co-obligant and also the letter of sanction. So the stand of the complainant that his signature has been taken without his knowledge is not believable. The complainant can not avoid his responsibilities as a guaranter to the loan amount taken by Haldhar bag. It is also found that the loanee Haldhar Bag has taken loan a sum of Rs. 4,95,000/- but had completely negligent and defaulter in payment of the loan amount.
In the present case the complainant is not entitled any relief from the O.P. We find there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
Hence to meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed.
ORDER.
4. In the result with these observations, findings, discussion the complaint petition is dismissed without cost and compensation. .
Accordingly the case is closed..
Dictated and corrected by me
Pronounced on this 10th. Day of February,, 2017.
Member. President
Documents relied upon:-
By the Complainant:-
- Xerox copies of the voter identity card.
- Xerox copies of the pass book No. 106110100013320 of the complainant.
By the O.P s:-
1.Xerox copies of the Composite agreement.
2.Covenants pf the co-obligant.
3.Letter of sanction..
4.Detail account statement of
President