Orissa

Debagarh

CC/2/2019

Hemalata Pradhan, W/O-Khageswar Pradhan, aged about 47 years - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Barkote Branch - Opp.Party(s)

R.K. Pradhan & S.K. Biswal

28 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH.

C.C Case No-  02/2019.

Present-   Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan,Member (W) and Smt. Arati Das, Member.

 

Hemalata Pradhan,

W/O- Khageswar Pradhan,Aged about 47 years,

Vill- Sanmanpur,P/O- Madhyapur,

Dist-Deogarh.                                                                                                 ...  Complainant

                                                                                    Versus

1. The Branch Manager,

          Central Bank of India, Barkote,

          Dist- Deogarh.

2. Competent Authority,

         N.H Land Acquisition-cum- Tahasildar,Barkote,

         At/PO/-Barkote, Dist-Deogarh.

3. Branch Manager,

          UGB,Kalla, At/P.O- Kalla,

          Dist-Deogarh.

4. P.D,NHAI,PIU,Keonjhar,

           At/P.O/Dist-Keonjhar.                                                          … Opposite Parties.

 

For the Complainant      : -       Sri R.K.Pradhan, Sri S.K Biswal,Advocate .

          For the O.P-1 & 3           :-        Sri S.Mishra,Advocate.

For the O.P-4                 :-        None.

 

 

       DATE OF HEARING: 20.08.2019, DATE OF ORDER: 28.08.2019.

Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President – Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant is the recorded owner of M.S Khata No-423/83 of Mouja Kalla having one plot of Gharbari Kisam bearing Plot No-3996/4332.The Complainant has availed House Building loan from the O.P-3 in the year 2013 for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- keeping the above said lands as equitable mortgage. That the term for repayment of loan is up to the year 2028. In the meantime the O.P-2 has acquired an area of  Ac. 0.05 dec. from the above plot relating to the said Khata for the expansion of NH-49 and paid compensation of Rs.30,31,616 through RTGS  from the CALA’s(Competent Authority Land Acquisition) account to the Complainant against the acquisition. As per the option of the Complainant the amount was deposited in account No. 34111148065 which is lying in the O.P-1.  An amount of Rs. 3,50,320/- is also deposited by Income Tax Department as Income Tax Return in that account.  On dtd. 02.01.2019 when the Complainant went to the O.P-1 to withdraw some money for her personal needs, the O.P-1 denied to allow transaction in the said account as per the written direction from the O.P-2 and freezed the account accordingly.  On asking the O.P-2, he told that by the order of the O.P-4, he has informed the O.P-1 to withhold every transaction to the account of the Complainant as it is related to a loan default matter, availed by the Complainant from O.P-3. When the O.P-3 got information about the acquisition of land and payment of compensation, he (the O.P-3) has issued a letter to the Chairman NHAI with a copy to the Tahasildar Barkote requesting to hold an amount of Rs.6,42,700 only from the account of the Complainant  as because the Complainant has created charge, mortgaged the above properties and availed a Housing Loan of Rs.6,00,000/- against the said property. The O.P-3 has also written to the Chairman, NHAI of India “to ensure for obtaining No Dues from him(O.P-3) of the landed properties  from the  borrower as the landed properties is mortgaged in favour of the O.P-3”. In response to the letter, the O.P-4 has directed the O.P-2, who in turn requested the O.P-1 vide letter No-2107 dtd. 03.09.2018 to withhold Rs.6,42,700/- until further order but not the whole amount and the account is withhold accordingly. As this amount is Govt. money and CALA holds the central account for the money so he has every right to withhold such account. The Complainant is a defaulter and there is an outstanding of Rs.6,42,700/- . According to the O.P-3, though the Complainant has received a compensation amount of Rs.30,31,616/- from O.P-2 in the year 2017 but till yet he did not tried to  repay the loan  having an ill intention  to grab all the money.        

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant is an account holder in the bank of the O.P-1& 3 hence she is a consumer as per section-2(1)d of Consumer Protection Act-1986. Again the Complainant is a willful defaulter of the O.P-3 since long and he has not tried to repay the loan even after receiving compensation against the acquisition of lands from the NHAI who is the O.P-2 in this case. She has cleverly deposited the Compensation amount in the Bank of O.P-1 instead of in the bank of O.P-3 in an apprehension of deduction /adjustment of outstanding amount against the home loan. In spite of several reminders from the O.P-3, the Complainant did not turned to pay the debt owed to the Bank.  Also Banks cannot invoke powers to create general lien to freeze a savings bank account and recover outstanding dues from an account holder without prior intimation to the customer, as per the verdict given by Maharashtra State Consumer Commission recently. Invoking the provision for creating lien or freezing a savings bank account has to be with prior intimation to the complainant as opportunity of natural justice. But here the O.P-3 has served several notices for the repayment but no response from the Complainant side is received. If a borrower becomes default for several months, the Bank can deduct money from his savings accounts or refuse to pay money from the fixed deposit when it matures. In fact, the Bank can lock any account of the borrowers, even if it is with another Bank. “If a Bank wants to lien an account of the defaulting customer with another Bank they can do so by filing for a garnishing order.”  If default happen with one  loan disbursing Bank and later it came to know that the defaulter is having account and funds in some other  Bank, the loan disbursing Bank can request the other Bank to freeze the account and it happens without the knowledge of the borrower/account holder.  For account holders who have their loan accounts at the same institution as their Bank account, the lender can gain access to a checking or savings account in order to collect payment on defaulted loans without filing a lawsuit or judgment first.  In order to cover a loan in default, a Bank has a legal right to seize funds of a debtor as well as the guarantor. As per the RBI guidelines in case the home loan EMI is not paid for more than 90 days, the entire home loan becomes a non-performing asset and the Bank may ask the borrower to repay the whole of the home loan amount outstanding. It is only continuous failure to pay the EMI, which constitutes a default. Also Bank can offer for Setoff which is a settlement of mutual debt between a creditor and a debtor through offsetting transaction claims. Hence from the above discussion we reached to a conclusion that the O.Ps has not committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant rather she filed a complaint against the O.Ps to unnecessarily harass them. Again the O.Ps are the high level official holding important posts in various departments in Govt. of Orissa and  Banking Institutions in the district of  Deogarh and the Complainant wasted the valuable time of the O.Ps. The Complainant became unable to prove her claim against the O.Ps. The O.Ps have not at any point of time committed “Deficiency in Service” U/S-2(1)(o) as per the Consumer Protection Act-1986 to the complainant and she is not deserved to get any relief from this Forum. Hence we order as under:-

ORDER

The Complainant is directed to pay the outstanding dues to the O.P-3 after having a discussion regarding the loan payment schedule with him. Further the Complainant is directed to pay  Rs. 1,000/-each to the O.P-1,O.P-2 & O.P-3  for the reason of filling a false, frivolous  and vexatious complaint against the O.Ps. u/s-26 of Consumer Protection Act-1986. The complainant is directed to comply the aforesaid order within 30 days of receiving of this order, failing which, in addition to this amount, interest shall have to be paid @ 9% p.a. till the amount is paid actually.

Office is directed to supply copies of the order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

Order is pronounced in the open court today i.e. on 28^th day of August, 2019 under my hand and seal of this Forum.      

 

I Agree,                                                         I Agree

                 

MEMBER.(W).                                           MEMBER.                            PRESIDENT.         

                                                             Dictated & Corrected  

                                                                            by me.

 

                                                         PRESIDENT.