DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 29th day of December, 2017
C.D Case No. 11 of 2015
Sri Ramakanta Das
S/o: Late Madhu Das
Vill : Mundali
Po: B.T. Pur
Ps: Agarapada
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
The Branch Manager
Balasore Bhadrak Central Co-operative Bank
Agarapada Branch
At/Po/Ps: Agarapada
Dist: Bhadrak
…………………………..Opp. Parties
For the Complainant: Sri J. B. Agasti, Advocate & Associates
For the OP: Muzahid Akhtar, Advocate & Associates
Date of hearing: 02.05.2017
Date of order: 29.12.2017
AFSARA BEGUM, MEMBER
The dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service.
The facts as narrated in the complaint are to the effect that the complainant, in order to earn his livelihood, had availed a business loan from the OP amounting to Rs 25,000/- for business purpose in order to earn his livelihood. But in the event of failure in repayment of regular installments, the said loan became overdue and the OP persistently demanded for payment of loan. The complainant finally drawn a cheque in favour of OP which was dishonored by the banker of the complainant & consequently OP filed a 1cc case against complainant which was disposed of in conviction. Consequent upon the conviction by the learned Court of JMFC, complainant preferred a criminal appeal vide No. 71/11, 2011-12 in the appropriate Court at Bhadrak. The said criminal appeal was compromised between the parties on 05.02.2013 on payment of the cheque amount of Rs 25,000/- on dt. 22.01.2013 and the residual amount of loan Rs 17,929/- outstanding in the loan account bearing No. 423014000201 was remained unpaid. Soon after withdrawal of the case from the sessions Court, the complainant requested the Branch Manager (OP Bank) on 20.12.2014 to issue clearance/no due certificate so as to enable the complainant to avail fresh loan to augment the shortfall of working capital in the business, but the OP bluntly refused to issue such no due certificate to the complainant and the complainant, being aggrieved with the action of the OP, issued a notice through his advocate on 24.12.2013 requesting him to resolve the issue within 15 days which was also not responded by the said OP. Such actions of OP amounts to deficiency of service which compelled the complainant to file this dispute in the D.C.D.R.F, Bhadrak praying for relief as specified in the complaint.
OP appeared before the Forum through advocate and submitted written version resisting the claim of the complainant and contested the case. In the written version so submitted wherein the OP has raised the point of maintainability of the dispute in the present form as the OP is not deficient in providing required services to the complainant. That apart, OP has denied all the charges as mentioned in the complaint other than the fact to the extent of dropping/withdrawal of criminal appeal by way of compromise. OP has also raised a vital point that the issue of no due certificate/clearance to the complaint is next to impossible as the complainant having another loan account with the OP Bank and an amount of Rs 50,247/- as on 31.01.2015 is outstanding in his loan account. When a sizable amount was outstanding as overdue loan, there was no scope with branch manager of OP bank other than to refuse for issue of no due certificate. In the aforesaid situation it is Cristal clear that the OP has not caused any deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant. As such, in view of the above facts the complaint itself does not have any merit and liable to dismissed with cost.
1. Perused the materials on record and heard the parties to this dispute. Admittedly the complainant is a borrower of OP bank and consequent upon default in repayment of loan installments, the loan account of the complainant became NPA and under persistent persuasions, the complainant drew a cheque of Rs 25,000/- in favour of the OP to the credit of his loan account bearing No. 423014000201 after receipt of collection proceeds. The opposite party presented the said cheque before the banker of the complainant which was dishonored for inadequate balance in the account of complainant, and consequently the OP filed a 1cc case in the Court of JMFC, Bhadrak. The learned JMFC, after proper adjudication following due procedure convicted the complainant who preferred a criminal appeal in the appropriate Court which was dropped/disposed off on compromise between the parties as the complainant repaid the cheque amount to the OP in this case. Apart from above, all other allegations of the complainant are disputed which are discussed briefly as under.
2. The complainant has alleged to have paid the entire dues outstanding in the loan account of 423014000201 in two installments. After making full and final payment to the aforesaid loan account, complainant claimed clearance/no due certificate from the OP bank which was refused by the OP and inspite of legal notice served by the complainant through his advocate, it was also not responded by the OP. Thus such action of the complainant amount to deficiency of service and the OP is liable to pay compensation and cost of litigation. On the contrary the learned counsel of the OP vehemently opposed the submission of the complainant in stating that the complainant is not entitled to get no due certificate unless he pays the loan dues outstanding against the complainant in loan account No. 423014000201 availed on 18.11.2006. It is further stated by OP that the complainant had availed two loans from OP bank on 18.11.2006 and 31.10.2013 @ Rs 25.000/- each out of which the complainant has repaid the loan in respect of account No. 423014000487 which has been closed by the Bank. But the account bearing No. 423014000201 is having a good amount of balance outstanding against the complainant unpaid which constrained the OP to refute for issue of no due certificate.
Perused the materials on record relevant to the afore mention discussions which reveals that the complainant had availed two number of loans out of which the loan account bearing No. 423014000487 has been closed on full and final payment. This account was not covered under 1 cc Case No. 614/2008 U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The loan account No. 423014000201 of the complainant maintained with OP Bank was covered under 1 cc case vide No. 614/2008 U/s 138 of NI Act which was disposed of with conviction to the complainant and subsequently compromised in the sessions Court on payment of Rs 25,000/- equivalent to the cheque amount. The balance unpaid amount of loan in the said account is still outstanding against the complainant. As such the refusal to issue no due certificate by the OP is absolutely just and proper & does not amount to any deficiency of service. Moreover the complainant has admitted at para- 7 of the complaint as to he had availed two numbers of loans from OP Bank out of which one has been closed on full and final payment without mentioning the loan account number specifically. Such action of the complainant compels the Forum to believe that he has sincerely tried to defraud the Bank with an unholy intention and for the reason mentioned herein, the complainant is liable to be penalized for filing a fake case in this Forum against the OP who is neither negligent nor has caused any deficiency of service.
Considering the facts as narrated/discussed above from different angles, it is observed that the complainant has utterly failed to prove the allegations against OP and it is proved that the motive of the complainant was to defraud the OP Bank. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same be dismissed without cost.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 29th December, 2017 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
