Counsel for:-

The Complainant: Shri D.K.Patra & Associate Advocate.

 The Opposite Party:  Not appeared

   JUDGEMENT

Shri A.K.Patra,President:

1. The Complaint has filed this complainant against the Ops alleging deficiency of service for non- release of R.OR even after the repayment of entire loan and prayed for an order directing  the O.P parties to return the original ROR deposited by the complainant before the op for the loan purposes and to pay Rs. 20,000 as  compensation in view of harassment being caused to the complainant by the OP and further prayed for all other relief as the honorable Commission deemed frit & proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
2. Complainant as well as the op are remaining absent on the date fixed for hearing. However, in view of Section 38(3)(c)  of C.P.Act,2019 case record taken up today to decide the complaint on merit.
3. Perused the material on record. We have our thoughtful consideration to contents of the complaint petition which are supported by an affidavit of the complainant.
4. Brief facts of the complaint are that, the complainant has purchased a tractor being financed by the Opposite Party Bank on dt.07.01.2005  and got it registered vide Registration No.OR08B8285. All installment amount has already been cleared by the complainant and the loan account vide No.11083690620  has been already been closed  on 27.06.2017 accordingly the Opposite Party Bank has issued  the closure memo of the loan amount.  At the time of sanctioned of loan the complainant has deposited  his original ROR  vide Khata No.22  for an area of Ac.20.290 dec. After clearing the loan amount and in spite of several requests also the Opp.Party Bank has not yet returned back his original ROR to the complainant for which the old aged farmer put to untold harassment being called by the bank authority to come this date or that date and he has gone hundreds of times to the bank/op to received back his deposited original ROR but till date said ROR is not released to the complainant . Hence, this complaint.
5. Notice vide no. 290,dt.29.09.2022 along with copy of the complaint & documents filed by the complaint there with the complaint petition is properly served to the op on  01.10.22  for their appearance and to answer the allegation of the complainant but the Opposite Party neither appeared nor  filed their written version. Sufficient opportunities have been given to the op to participate in the hearing of this complaint but op did not turn up  .So also the Complainant is remaining absent on the date fixed for hearing. However, in view of Section 38(3)(c)  of C.P.Act,2019 case record taken up today to decide the complaint on merit.
6. Perused the documents available on record.
7. To substantiate his claim the complainant has filed the original certificate of closer of the Tractor loan vide A/C no. 11083690620 which contend that “Mr.Janmejaya Majhi had availed a Tractor loan a/c no. 11083690620 from SBI Bhawanipatna Branch (00039) on dt.07/01/2005 .The loan a/c closed on 27/06/2017”.So also the averments of the complainant petition are supported by an affidavit of the complainant is taken into consideration.
8.  Here the doctrine of non –traverse will rightly applicable as non of the allegation made by the complainant are ever disputed or traversed by the O.P in any manner .The opposite party have neither    disputed nor produce any evidence contrary to the averment of the complainant which in terms is a clear admission of facts of the complaint and the same need not proved as per Sec 58 of Indian evidence Act. Law is well settled that  every allegation of facts in the complaint if not denied specifically or by necessary implication , or stated to be admitted in the pleading of the O.P shall be taken to be admitted accept as against a person disability . Where the O.p has not filed a pleading it shall be law full for the court to pronounced judgment on the basic of the fact contend in the plaint except as against the person under a disability (Reliance placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in  M.Venkataramana Hebbar Vs M. Rajagopal Hebbar & Others, Lohia Properties (P) Ltd Vs. Atmaram Kumar).
9. In the light of above said discussion and settled principle of law we are of the considered view that the Op is deficient in service and unfair trade practice for non release of the original ROR  vide Khata No.22  for an area of Ac.20.290 dec deposited against the  Tractor loan vide a/c no. 11083690620 of SBI Bhawanipatna Branch (00039) on dt.07/01/2005 though it is closed on 27/06/2017 which certainly caused  mental agony and financial hardship to the complainant as such she is entitled to be compensated by the O.P. Hence this complaint is allowed against the op ex-party with following orders.

ORDER

The O.P is directed to release the original ROR  vide Khata No.22  for an area of Ac.20.290 dec deposited against the  Tractor loan vide a/c no. 11083690620 of SBI Bhawanipatna Branch (00039) and to pay   compensation  Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony & financial hardship suffered  due to deficiency of service on the  part  op within four weeks from the date of received of this order, failing which the Op is  liable to pay  compensation @ 1,000/-per day till compliance  of this order.

Dictated and corrected by me.

I   agree.

Member

Pronounced in open Commission today on this   19^th January 2023under the seal and signature of this Commission. The pending application if any is also disposed off accordingly.

Free copy of this order be supplied to the parties for their perusal or party may download the same from the Confonet be treated as copy served to the parties. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

Member.                                                                                           President