Date of filing:-21/09/2015.
Date of Order:-26/09/2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H
Consumer Complaint No. 56 of 2015
Nabin Kumar Sahu S/o Late Radhakanta Sahu, aged about 35(thirty five) years R.o/Village- Bijepur P/o/Ps. Bijepur Dist- Bargarh
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
- V e r s u s -
The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bijepur Branch, At/Po/Ps – Bijepur, Dist- Bargarh
..... ..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties.
For the Complainant:- Sri S.K. Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties:- Sri B. Behera, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt. 26/09/2016 -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri K.P. Mishra, President:-
Brief of the Case;-
In brief the case of the Complainant is that, the Complainant had obtained a loan from the Opposite Party's Bank for an amount of rupee Rs.3,90,000/-(Rupees three lakh ninety thousand)only for purchasing a tractor vide loan account No - 30522730942 by duely executing a mortgage deed and at the same time depositing title deed i.e R.O.R in favour of the said Bank of the Opposite Party and against the same the said amount of loan amount was disbursed to the complainant.
Further as per the Complainant, with the mutual settlement of both the parties the Complainant repaid all the loan amount in one time settlement scheme of the Opposite Party Bank, but even after payment of the loan amount by the Complainant the Opposite Party did not return the aforesaid documents which was submitted by him and the clearance certificate against his said loan repayment and even after several request and reminder, and on 2/10/2015 the Opposite Party denied to return the same for which of such action on the part of the Opposite Party, the cause of action of the case has arose, and as the Complainant has suffered a lot by not being able to utilize the document in his need nor could sell his said tractor for want of the clearance certificate, which amounts to deficiencies in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. For which of such action of the Opposite Party, he has prayed before the Forum to give a direction to the Opposite Party to return his documents along with clearance certificate against his said loan and has also claimed for compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only.
After hearing the Complainant and perusing the documents filed by the Complainant the Forum was pleased to admit the case and notice was served on the Opposite Party .
On getting Notice from the Forum, the Opposite Party appeared and filed his version through his advocate and as per the rival contention of the Opposite Party to the averments made by the Complainant, the Opposite Party has admitted the transaction of loan and the repayment of the same on the one time settlement scheme, but with regard to the allegation of the complainant of not returning his documents in time and harassment caused to him by the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party has categorically denied the same and in it’s reply has contended that it is not the fault or any deficiencies on it’s part rather the Complainant has not turned of himself to take back his documents nor has made any correspondence with regard to his such allegation of not returning the documents and harassment made by the Opposite Party and has claimed that the case filed by the Complainant is with an ulterior motive in order to harass the Bank as the same Documents has already taken by him on Dt.16/11/2015.
On going through the complaint and the version filed by the o.p and on perusing the documents filed by both the parties the case rests on the following two points as mentioned below for determination .
Whether there is any deficiencies of service on the part of the Opposite Party or not.
Secondly whether the complainant is entitled for any compensation .
While going through the complaint, documents filed by the Complainant and the version along with the documents filed by him we are of the view that so far as the first point for determination is concerned it was a mutual settlement by both the parties that the aforesaid loan was obtained by the Complainant on Dt. 30/03/2008 on mortgaging his R.O.R and executing a mortgage deed, and also it was repaid by him as per the mutual settlement of the parties in an one time settlement scheme of the Opposite Party and in our view it is quite but natural that since it was an financial matter and it was closed under one specified scheme by a Bank like S.B.I and as the Complainant is a villager it should have the bounden duty of the Opposite Party to clear all the documentation part of the transaction and should have returned the documents to him then and there to clear off the matter immediately which the Opposite Party has not done so which amounts to deficiencies in service on the part of the Opposite Party more over it is pertinent to mention here that the documents have been returned to the Complainant on Dt.16/11/2015 as submitted by the Opposite Party himself which fortify our view which implies that the allegation of the complainant for being harassed by the Opposite Party Bank is also quite evident.
And so far as the compensation claimed by the Complainant, since the first part of the case has been viewed in favour of the Complainant the second question of determination also answered affirmatively in his favour hence ordered.
Hence as the Opposite Party has already returned the documents of the Complainant it is needless to give any direction to that effect but so far the claim of the compensation part of the Complainant is concerned, the Opposite Party is directed, to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand)only to Complainant with in thirty days from the date of order of the forum, in default of which, the same amount would incur interest @ 9% (nine percent) per annum till realization of the same and also the Opposite Party is further directed not commit such activities with any of it’s customer in future.
We pronounce the order in the open Forum and accordingly the case is disposed off to-day on Dt. 26/09/2016
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, (Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
. M e m b e r.
