The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Branch Manager, S.B.I, Kupari, O.P No.2 is the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, O.T Road, Balasore and O.P No.3 is the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bhubaneswar.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant in order to maintain his livelihood, availed a Tractor loan from O.P No.1 on 29.06.2006 for Rs.4,27,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs twenty seven thousand) only vide loan account No.11702808974. But, the O.P No.1 did not supply copy of agreement/ deed of mortgage executed between the Complainant and O.P No.1, where consolidation khata-56 and 3 in original are kept with the O.Ps, rather the O.P No.1 orally informed the Complainant to pay the loan amount within ten years without informing about E.M.I and rate of interest. Thus, the Complainant has paid Rs.3,89,730/- (Rupees Three lacs eighty nine thousand seven hundred thirty) only within 26.12.2006 to 27.09.2013 in toto towards his loan of Rs.4,27,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs twenty seven thousand) only. During the month of April, 2013 as per advice of O.P No.1, outstanding loan amount of the Complainant was settled at Rs.2,18,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs eighteen thousand) only under one time settlement (in short O.T.S) in presence of O.P No.2, as such the Complainant agreed to it. As per instruction of O.P No.1 and 2, the Complainant has to pay Rs.17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand) only out of Rs.2,18,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs eighteen thousand) only or else, O.T.S will not be affected. Accordingly, the Complainant has deposited Rs.17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand) only to O.P No.1 on 30.04.2013 and Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) only on 31.12.2013 to the Field Officer of O.P No.1 for O.T.S amount. Thereafter, the O.P No.1 without any intimation has transferred Rs.1,79,000/- (Rupees one lakh seventy nine thousand) only on 29.07.2015 from S.B Account No.11702718795 of the Complainant and adjusted towards O.T.S amount. Accordingly, the Complainant has paid Rs.2,36,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs thirty six thousand) only against O.T.S amount of Rs.2,18,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs eighteen thousand) only, as such the O.Ps have taken excess of Rs.18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen thousand) only. The Complainant had been to O.P No.1 and asked for no dues certificate along with original R.O.R (as mortgaged) and original R.C Book, but the O.P No.1 did not return the same, rather instructed to consult with the O.P No.2 and 3 for the same. The O.P No.1 had issued a notice to the Complainant on 25.08.2015 demanding Rs.4,27,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs twenty seven thousand) only within seven days from the date of receipt of notice or else, they will seize the vehicle. The Complainant on receipt of said notice, moved to the O.Ps on several occasions within July, 2015 to 14.10.2015, but the O.P No.1 finally denied to issue no dues certificate on 14.10.2015, thus causing financial loss and mental agony to the Complainant. Cause of action arose on 14.10.2015. The Complainant has prayed for issuance of no dues certificate, return of original R.O.R along with R.C Book, refund of excess deposited amount and compensation towards mental agony and litigation cost.

                    3. Written version filed by the O.P No.1 through his Advocate denying on the point of maintainability, Consumer as well as its cause of action. The O.P No.1 has further submitted that the Complainant Budhiram Kandi, as a borrower approached the O.P No.1-Bank along with his three brothers namely Ananta Prasad Kandi, Rajendra Prasad Kandi and Kailash Chandra Kandi as Guarantors, submitted a loan application on 12.06.2006 and thereby requested the O.P No.1-Bank for grant of an Agricultural Term loan to the tune of Rs.4,27,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs twenty seven thousand) only for purchase of a Tractor and Accessories. Accordingly, the said Term loan for a sum of Rs.4,27,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs twenty seven thousand) only was sanctioned by O.P No.1-Bank as per certain terms and conditions of the loan sanction letter dtd.28.06.2006. The said loan has been secured against primary security of hypothecation of the Tractor and its accessories along with collateral mortgage securities/ Regd. charge declaration of certain landed property in Mouza- Boulani jointly belonging to the borrower and guarantors. Accordingly, the Complainant after fully knowing and understanding the contents of the same, executed a Hypothecation agreement on 28.06.2006, containing certain terms of repayment of the above loan. According to the terms of sanction and Hypothecation, the interest on the loan amount will be paid @ 10.75% p.a with half yearly rest according to rise and fall of rate of interest as per Bank Rules. Further, the Complainant has to repay the above loan amount and interest in 18 half yearly installment @ Rs.23,730/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand seven hundred thirty) only plus interest. The three brothers of the Complainant jointly executed a Guarantee agreement on 28.06.2006 and accepted their joint and several liabilities for repayment of the Tractor loan and interest. Thereafter, the Complainant purchased a Tractor and its accessories out of the Bank finance and utilized the same for his business and derived income out of the same. Subsequently, the Complainant became irregular in repayment of half yearly installments as fixed and defaulted. As a result, the interest became overdue and ultimately, the loan account was declared NPA Account. Thus, the Complainant deliberately violated the terms of repayment of half yearly installments @ Rs.23,730/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand seven hundred thirty) only plus interest contained in the sanction letter and never became regular to repay the installment in time. All the deposits credited in the loan account as per entries in the “Statement of Account” are true and correct and stand open for the Complainant for knowledge and information. According to the persuasions and demand made by the O.P No.1-Bank for repayment of the loan amount and overdue interest, the Complainant approached the O.P No.1-Bank and requested for an One Time Settlement (OTS) of the outstanding loan dues and accordingly, the Controlling Office of O.P No.1 i.e. O.P No.2-Bank as part of Customer services after due consideration, accepted the compromise proposal on payment of the settled amount to the tune of Rs.2,18,755/- (Rupees Two Lacs eighteen thousand seven hundred fifty five) only, for which the Complainant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.16,277/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand two hundred seventy seven) only at the first instance and subsequently, the rest amount to be paid on or before 30.09.2013 and accordingly, the above terms of one time settlement was informed to the Complainant. But, the Complainant being aware of his duty and obligation under compromise settlement for deposit of the above amount and on acceptance of the said compromise proposal, initially he has deposited only a sum of Rs.17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand) only on 30.04.2013. But subsequently, the Complainant remained silent and not deposited the rest settled amount of a sum of Rs.2,01,755/- (Rupees Two lacs one thousand seven hundred fifty five) only within the stipulated period i.e. before 30.09.2013 as per direction, which is sheer violation of the contracts as per terms of the OTS. The Complainant having failed to perform his duties and obligation for repayment of remaining balance amount by the stipulated period dtd.30.09.2013, the said compromise proposal stands cancelled since there is no further request or prayer by the Complainant for extension of time with reasonable ground. As a result, the Complainant is required to pay the regular outstanding dues standing in his loan account as per O.P-Bank record. Further, the Complainant deposited Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) only on 31.12.2013 instead of paying entire outstanding dues of the Bank. At last finding no other way, the O.P-Bank in exercise of his right under the terms and agreement transferred for set-off an amount of Rs.1,79,000/- (Rupees One lakh seventy nine thousand) only on 29.07.2015 from the S.B A/c No.11702718795 of the Complainant and credited the same amount for adjustment of the loan account of the Complainant. Thereafter, the O.P No.1-Bank after taking into consideration of deposits made by the Complainant in his loan account and after adjustment of the same, addressed a demand notice to the Complainant on 25.08.2015 to pay the entire outstanding dues of Rs.4,18,997/- (Rupees Four lacs eighteen thousand nine hundred ninety seven) only with interest as on the date. As admitted by the Complainant that he has deposited full loan amount, if adjusted towards principal amount of loan as per terms of sanction and agreement, the O.P-Bank has right to claim interest as per Bank rules and regulations and also business practice of the O.P-Bank as calculated and credited from time to time and as per entries in the statement of account. In the circumstances, the Complainant has to pay the entire amount due along with the interest according to Law. Thus, the Complainant being fully aware of the above situation and circumstances, when the O.P No.1-Bank was contemplating to file a regular civil suit for realization of its dues, compelling the Complainant to fulfill his duties and obligations for part performance of contract, the Complainant has filed this case, which is an eye wash.    

                    4. Though sufficient opportunities are given to the O.P No.2 and 3, but they have not appeared in this case. So, the O.P No.2 and 3 are set ex-parte.  

                    5. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iii) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer as per C.P Act, 1986 ?

(iv) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

                    6. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that he has availed a Tractor loan of Rs.4,27,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs twenty seven thousand) only and out of it, he has paid Rs.3,89,730/- (Rupees Three lacs eighty nine thousand seven hundred thirty) only, but thereafter his account became NPA and as per agreement with the Bank, OTS settled to the amount to the tune of Rs.2,18,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs eighteen thousand) only. Accordingly, the Complainant has paid Rs.17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand) only on 30.04.2013 and Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) only on 31.12.2013 and Rs.1,79,000/- (Rupees one lakh seventy nine thousand) only was transferred from his S.B Account to the loan Account by the Bank on 29.07.2015. So, the Complainant has paid Rs.2,36,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs thirty six thousand) only against O.T.S amount of Rs.2,18,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs eighteen thousand) only, as such the O.Ps have taken excess of Rs.18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen thousand) only. But, the Bank without returning the R.C Book, R.O.R, rather demanding Rs.4,27,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs twenty seven thousand) only within seven days from the date of receipt of notice or else, they will seize the vehicle, for which the Complainant has approached this Forum praying for issuance of no dues certificate, return of original R.O.R along with R.C Book, refund of excess deposited amount and compensation along with litigation cost etc. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.P No.1-Bank that Rs.4,27,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs twenty seven thousand) only was sanctioned to the Complainant on terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement and when the Complainant became defaulter in repayment of loan amount, the account became NPA. Thereafter, on the basis of OTS, a sum of Rs.2,18,755/- (Rupees Two Lacs eighteen thousand seven hundred fifty five) only was fixed to the Complainant for settlement, out of which a sum of Rs.16,277/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand two hundred seventy seven) only is to be paid at the first instance and subsequently, the rest amount to be paid on or before 30.09.2013 and accordingly, the Complainant has paid Rs.17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand) only on 30.04.2013 and remained silent and thereafter, he has deposited Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) only on 31.12.2013 and a sum of Rs.1,79,000/- (Rupees One lakh seventy nine thousand) only was transferred from his S.B Account to the loan Account on 29.07.2015. But, till 25.08.2015, there is again outstanding of Rs.4,18,997/- (Rupees Four lacs eighteen thousand nine hundred ninety seven) only with interest and then the OTS remain unaffected. Basing on this, account of statement has been filed in the case record, which discloses that deposit of Rs.17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand) only on 30.04.2013, Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) only on 31.12.2013 and Rs.1,79,000/- (Rupees One lakh seventy nine thousand) only was transferred from his S.B Account to the loan Account on 29.07.2015. On 30.04.2013, the outstanding dues against the Complainant before OTS was Rs.4,09,506.22 ps. (Rupees Four lacs nine thousand five hundred six and twenty two paisa) only. So, the Complainant has got a huge amount of rebate in the OTS. So, the circular of OTS has been filed in the case record, which discloses in the Time limit and future interest column that “(a) Settlement amount shall preferably be collected in full without charging future interest i.e. from the date of sanction of OTS till 31.03.2013. (b) In cases, where the borrowers are unable to pay the settlement amount as above on genuine grounds, the amount may be recovered in installments with simple interest at base rate, but in any case not later than 30.09.2013.” But, in the instant case, the Complainant has neither paid the due amount in time nor approached the O.P-Bank for extension of time and remained silent. So, when the terms and conditions of OTS are not fulfilled by the Complainant, the loan amount and OTS due has been retrograded to its original position.

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, I found no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps-Bank in this case and on the other hand, the Complainant himself is a defaulter in repayment of loan amount, for which he is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                        The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against O.P No.1 and on ex-parte against O.P No.2 & 3, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost.  

                        Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 29th day of January, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.