Orissa

Kalahandi

CC/151/2015

Abhimanyu Bag - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager Andhra Bank, Bhawanipatana - Opp.Party(s)

S.K Pattjoshi & Others

10 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KALAHANDI
NEAR TV CENTRE PADA BHAWANIPATANA KALAHANDI
ODISHA PIN 766001
 
Complaint Case No. CC/151/2015
 
1. Abhimanyu Bag
po Kerokuda Tikrapada Sadar Bhawanipatana
Kalahandi
Odisha
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Branch Manager Andhra Bank, Bhawanipatana
Near Statue Squre Bhawaniptana
Kalahandi
Odisha
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWINI KUMAR SAHOO PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. ASHOK KUMAR PATRA MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:S.K Pattjoshi & Others, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 10 Feb 2017
Final Order / Judgement

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:-

 

  1. Xerox copies of the  voter identity card.
  2. 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

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWINI KUMAR SAHOO]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. ASHOK KUMAR PATRA]
MEMBER

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.