DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 14th day of October, 2019
C.D Case No. 33 of 2017
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Anil Kumar Rout
S/o Dhaneswar Rout
Vill: Khirasahi,
Po: Atto,
Ps: Bhadrak (R),
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. The Branch Manager of
Odisha Gramya Bank of Sabaranga Branch,
At/Po: Sabaranga,
Ps: Bhadrak (R),
Dist: Bhadrak
2. Gutu Mohanty
The Owner of Gugulu Auto Syndicate,
Near Petro Pump of N.H- 5
Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri J. B. Agasti & Others, Adv
Counsel For the OP No. 1: Sri P. K. Nayak & Others, Adv
Counsel For the OP No. 2: Sri S. Tripathy, Adv
Date of hearing: 13.02.2019
Date of order: 14.10.2019
RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the O.Ps. The complainant had applied for granting loan for purchasing a paddy Harvester Machine through the OP No. 1 and he sanctioned a loan amounting to Rs 13,37,000/- in favour of the complainant. But initially he had deposited Rs 6,70,000/- in the Bank of the OP No. 1. After scrutinization of documents/papers, the OP No. 1 has sanctioned Rs 13,37,000/- in favour of the complainant for receiving paddy Harvester Machine from the OP No. 2 and the said sanctioned money was sent to OP No. 2 for supplying the said machine to the complainant and accordingly the paddy Harvester Machine was delivered to the complainant on 19.09.2015. The OP No. 2 has received the sanctioned money from OP No. 1 on dt. 28.10.2014. But after receiving the said money, the OP No. 2 did not supply the said Machine immediately, rather the OP No. 2 has delivered the said Machine to the complainant on dt. 19.09.2015. So, after sanctioning the loan amount in favour of the complainant, the said vehicle, paddy Harvester Machine was delivered to the complainant after one year by the OP No. 2. So, the complainant is not liable to pay the interest amount during the said period. Because of that, the complainant could not get scope to use the said vehicle for earning money to maintain his livelihood by the said vehicle. So, it is quite essential that for the said period the OP No. 1 should not impose any interest against the loan amount upon the complainant. Further the complainant states that, Rs 6,70,000/- the money which was deposited at the OP No. 1, Bank, the OP No. 1 has credited Rs 2,01,000/- only in the loan account and out of a said money rest money has been deposited as fixed deposit in the name of the complainant. So, after credital of Rs 2,01,000/- into loan account of the complainant, the loan amount was reduced from Rs 13,37,000/- to Rs 11,36,000/-. So, the OP No. 1 calculated interest on the reducing amount of Rs 11,36,000/- only. The complainant states that approximately after one year, the said paddy Harvester Machine was delivered to the complainant. So, the O.Ps have neglected their duties and have not given proper service to the complainant. So, there is serious deficiency in service by the O.Ps. Because, as per statement the accounts of OP No. 1 the interest has been calculated from 31.10.2014 to 25.09.2015, but the machine was delivered to the complainant on 19.09.2015. So, for the said period without delivering of machine, how the OP No. 1 has calculated interest agonist the complainant from above the period i.e. 31.10.2014 to 25.09.2015. So, this calculation of interest for the period from 31.10.2014 to 25.09.2015 is liable to be exempted. The OP No. 1 has calculated Rs 12,81,320/- against the complainant, the interest is Rs 1,45,320/- + Principal reduced loan mount Rs 11,36,000/-. So, the interest i.e. Rs 1,45,320/- be exempted from the loan account of complainant otherwise the complainant will not justice because, the paddy Harvester Machine was delivered to the complainant on 19.09.2015. So, the OP No. 1 which he has calculated the aforesaid period is not correct in the eye of law. So, the interest of the aforesaid period from 31.10.2014 to 25.09.2015 be exempted. The cause of action for the present dispute arose on 31.10.2014 to 25.09.2015 with regard to interest i.e. Rs 1,45,320/-.
Hence the complainant has sought for the following reliefs.
1. The O.ps be directed to exempt the complainant to pay the illegal interest of Rs 1,45,320/- from the period of 31.102.014 to 25.09.2015 which is pending in the name of complainant or any suitable order be passed in favour of the complainant.
2. The cost of proceeding be given to the complainant.
3. An order be passed directing the O.Ps to pay sum of Rs 20,000/- only for mental agony.
Documents filed by on behalf of the complainant (Xerox copies).
1. A/c statement of 20.03.2017- 1 sheet.
2. Said certificate of 19.09.2015- 1 sheet.
3. Money receipt of 28.10.2014- 1 sheet.
4. Application of 27.02.2017- 1 sheet.
The OP No. 1 has appeared in this Forum through his concerned Advocate and filed his written version as follows.
1. This proceeding is barred by mis-joinder of necessary parties this OP No. 1 has been made party without any fault on its part so he has been wrongly made party in this case. The OP No. 1 has also contended that since OP No. 1paid entire loan amount on dt. 28.10.2014 the complainant is liable to pay interest on the sanctioned amount from dt. 28.10.2014. Delay in delivery of machine by OP No. 2 who was selected by complainant is not an act of deficiency in service or negligence in service on the part of OP No. 1. The complainant has admitted that the OP No. 1 sanctioned Rs 13,37,000/- in his favour for receiving paddy Harvest Machine from the OP No. 2 and further admitted that said amount of money was paid on dt. 28.10.2014. As per the agreement entered in to between complainant and OP No. 1 interest is to be charged on the sanctioned amount from the date of payment and the complainant who is highly educated executed the agreement having been fully satisfied about correctness of the contents of the agreement. Hence the OP No. 1 has prayed for the dismissal of this proceeding. The OP No. 1 has filed no document is this case to support his stands.
The OP No. 2 has appeared in this Forum to his concerned Advocate and filed his written version as follows.
1. The OP No. 2 has challenged the maintainability of this proceeding he has denied all the averments made in the Para No- 1 & 2 of the complaint.
The fact is that the complainant has got 3 paddy harvester machines and Sonalika Tractor prior to purchase this paddy harvester from the OP No. 2. The complainant approached the OP No. 1directly to purchase one JOHN DEER STANDARD-S-390 Harvester for commercial purpose on the loan basis. The complainant also filed an application before the Govt. authority to avail Govt. subsidy of Rs 2,00,000/- only during the period of processing of loan. After scrutinization of necessary documents of the complainant. The OP No. 1 paid Rs 13,37,000/- to the OP No. 2 through RTGS on dt. 31.102.014 and directed to provide one John Deer Harvester Model (Standard) to the complainant Sri Anil Kumar Rout. The complainant came to the firm of the OP No. 2 on dt. 31.10.2014 and requested the OP No. 2 to take the Harvester Machine without the sale certificate and delivery challan. The complainant convinced the OP No. 2 that he has not (the complainant) received the permission letter from the Govt. regarding subsidy. Further the complainant told the OP No. 2 that after receiving the Harvesters subsidy permission, he would take the sale certificate and delivery challan of the said Harvester Machine. So as per the repeated request by the complainant, the OP No. 2 delivered Harvester in question to this complainant on dt. 31.10.2014. The complainant made an undertaking with regard to the above matter on dt. 03.12.2014 and handed over the said written undertaking to the OP No. 2. The original undertaking is filed herewith for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court. Again on dt. 19.09.2015 the complainant came to the firm of the OP No. 2 and told him that he (the complainant) failed to take permission regarding subsidy of the Harvester Machine from the Govt. The complainant approached the OP No. 2 to take his sale certificate, delivery challan of the said Harvester Machine on dt. 19.09.2015. Accordingly the OP No. 2 issued sale certificate and delivery challan of the said machine to this complainant on dt. 19.09.2015. The OP No. 2 has further stated that in order to avoid the payment of EMIs to the Bank. The complainant has filed false case against the O.Ps. Hence he has sought for the dismissal of this complaint. The OP No. 2 has filed no document in respect of this case.
OBSERVATION
We have already perused the complaint and written version filed by the complainant and the O.Ps as well as the documents filed by him. We have reached the findings that the complainant ahs made prayer to Hon’ble Forum to direct exemption of interest of Rs 1,45,320/- from dt. 31.10.2014 to 25.09.2015. It is contendant by complainant since delivery of machine by OP No. 2 was on dt. 25.09.2015. So he is not liable to pay interest from dt. 28.10.2014 till 25.09.2015. This complainant entered in to an agreement with OP No. 1 on 31.10.2014, that the repayment of principal along with interest shall start, from dt. 30.11.2014 and also entered into agreement he shall repay entire loan with interest in 72 equal installments. This OP No. 1 performed his part releasing loan on dt. 28.10.2014, if there was delay in delivery, of machine, OP No. 1 is not liable for that. That there is no stipulation in the agreement, that interest would be charged on the principal from the date of delivery of machine. OP No. 1 is a nationalized bank. If there was delay in delivery of machine of one year it was not the fault of OP No. 1 OP No. 1 did not commit any act of deficiency in service.
It is pertinent to discuss here that the complainant has given an undertaking to the supplier of the vehicle i.e. OP No. 1 not to raise any claim in future regarding late supply of sale memo/tax invoice as it is done under the sincere request of the complainant by virtue of an undertaking on non-judicial paper wroth of Rs 60/- which discloses that the objection on this point filed by OP No. 1 is valid and it is evident that the complainant has suppressed the material fact in the pleadings. Secondly as regards making of down payment of Rs 6,70,000/- by the complainant it is found from the account statement that the OP No. 2 has taken promoter’s contribution of Rs 2,01,000/- instated of Rs 6,70,000/- as a result of which the complainant suffered from the interest burden. Had the entire amount of promoters contribution been reduced from the loan amount right from the day of advance, the interest burden would have been lessened and the complainant would have not suffered. Therefore the Bank should reverse the interest charged on the principal amount of Rs 4,69,000/- from the date of debiting the loan account till the date of filing of this case.
He has failed to make out the primafcaie case with regard to the deficiency of service. The complainant before knocking at the door of this Forum, he should have sent representation to both the O.Ps what relief/reliefs he has to obtain, but the complainant has failed to do so. He has never informed with regard to his grievance to the O.Ps. According to the complainant, what he has narrated in the Para No- 6 of the complaint that “the cause of action for the present dispute arose on 31.10.2014 to 25.09.2015 with regard to the interest Rs 1,45,320/-”. According to the CP Act any complaint should be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action arose. But in this case the cause of action arose on 31.10.2014 to 25.09.2015 in a continuing process. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is allowed on part against OP No. 1. OP No. 1 is directed to reduce the interest burden on principal amount of Rs 4,69,000/- from the date of advance till the date of filing this case and communicate the revised outstanding position to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of order and to pay Rs 2,000/- as cost of this litigation.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 14th October, 2019 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
