DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 6th day of March, 2020
C.D Case No. 52 of 2018
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Sri Madan Mohan Pradhan
S/o Late Sudarsan Pradhan
Vill: Patrisahi,
Po: Bamkura,
Ps: Dhusuri,
Dist: Bhadrak, Odisha
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, Bhadrak Branch, Bhadrak
At/Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak
2. Sri Soumya Ranjan Das & Co
Advocate & Enforcement Agent, Pratikshya, Gopabandhu Nagar, Naya Bazar, Cuttack- 753004 ……………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri D. Nayak, Adv & Others
Counsel For the OP No. 1: Sri Birup Kumar Jena, Adv & Others
Counsel For the OP No. 2: Set Ex-parte
Date of hearing: 30.09.2019
Date of order: 06.03.2020
BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the O.Ps.
The facts of the case as described in the complaint are to the effect that the complainant is a beneficiary under OP No. 1 as he has incurred Agricultural Term loan for acquisition of a tractor to earn his lively hood and to maintain his family. Accordingly he applied to OP No. 1 bank along with a quotation obtained from the dealer of his own choice. The OP No. 1 bank sanctioned a sum of Rs 4,36,000/- in favour of the complainant as against quotation amount of Rs 6,80,000/- on compliance of all required documents and disbursed the amount to the concerned dealer for supply of tractor. On receipt of the supply order along with the Demand Draft, the dealer supplied the tractor to the complainant. Out of the total quotation amount of Rs 6,80,000/- OP No. 1 advanced loan of Rs 4,36,000/- and the residual amount was promised to pay at the later stage but did not release the amount despite repeated requests as a result of which the complainant failed to procure other equipments such as tiller, labeler and cage wheel . The complainant failed to repay the prefixed Equated Monthly Installments (EMI) matching to the installment amount as the tractor on loan did not generate adequate income because of manufacturing defects and due to want of required equipments. On the other hand OP No. 1 with the help of OP No. 2 repossessed the vehicle without prior intimation/notice to the complainant. After the vehicle was repossessed the complainant contacted the OP bank to release the vehicle which was agreed by the said OP on payment of Rs 1,20,000/- but deferred the proposal on the plea that further discussion is required to settle the issue and refused to receive the amount instantly. But to his ill luck the OP No. 1 sold the vehicle without any intimation to the complainant which is considered as unfair trade practice and violation of settled position of law. Since then from the date of auction the complainant has been persistently requesting the OP bank to release the vehicle on receipt of the overdue amount but to no avail. Thereafter in the year 2017 during the month of December the complainant served a notice upon OP No. 1 bank to release the vehicle which was not responded which amounts to deficiency of service. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the activities of OP bank and finding no alternative the complainant preferred this case in the District Forum for admission and adjudication with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to pay compensation of Rs 90,000/- for harassment & loss sustained due to unfair trade practice along with cost of litigation.
OP No. 1 strongly objected the contents of the complaint and contested the case. In submitting written version the answering OP denied all allegations made in the complaint and raised the question of maintainability as the present case falls within barred by limitation. It is also stated by answering OP that the complainant has never intimated the OP bank as to the problems arose in the tractor due to manufacturing defects nor has intimated the manufacturer about the defects of the tractor even the complainant has not made the manufacturer as a party to of this case. Further it is also submitted by OP bank that due to default in repayment and mounting of overdue the answering OP has served notice on the complainant to repay the loan failing which the answering OP would be forced to take legal recourse under the provisions of law. Despite, several notices the complainant neither turned up to repay the loan nor negotiated for one time settlement to close the loan account. It is also highlighted in the written version that since this case falls under barred by limitation the case does not bear any merit and liable to be dismissed.
As the OP No. 2 did not appear before the Forum nor submitted any written version as a result of which the said OP is set ex-parte.
Admittedly the complainant had applied the OP bank for a loan to acquire a tractor and finally had incurred such loan and failed to repay the loan installments as per repayment schedule and the OP has repossessed the vehicle in question and put to auction due to failure in repayment of overdue amount by the complainant.
On perusal of complaint of the complainant, written version of OP No. 1, materials available on record, written argument filed by OP bank and observed as follows.
The OP bank has focused on single point that is barred by limitation. In course of hearing the said OP raised that the cause of action arose on 01.09.2011 that is the date of repossession of vehicle but the case has been filed on dt. 05.07.2018, after lapse of about seven years. On the other hand complainant contented in saying that the cause of action is bundle of facts which continued till 04.12.2017 when the complainant served a notice through his advocate on the O.Ps. Contrary to the statement of complainant, O.Ps cited the relevant provision of law as laid down in section 24- A of CP Act the District Forum, The State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Simultaneously the OP bank has also cited a decision of National Commission in First Appeal No. 88, 89 & 90 of 2016, decided on 19.12.2016 that the Limitation to file complaint does not extend by subsequent notices given after more than four years. In another First Appeal No. 29/2016 decided on 19.01.2017 the National Commission has held that as the complaint barred by limitation, merits of the case cannot be considered. Simultaneously the National Commission in revision petition No. 1920/2016 decided on 02.11.2017 has also held that period of limitation cannot be extended by making representations and demanding payment from service provider.
In the instant case the complainant has served a notice upon the OP bank on 04.12.2017 even though the actual cause of action arose on 01.09.2011 which clearly proves that the complainant slept over the matter for a period of six years and some odd months. He has neither filed any petition for condonation of delay nor taken any step to continuing the cause of action.
In view of the above facts and the cited decisions of Hon’ble National Commission, this Forum holds that this case has been filed after six years of the actual cause of action and such inordinate delay cannot be considered.
ORDER
In the result the complaint be and the same is dismissed against O.Ps without cost and compensation.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 6th March, 2020 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
