DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK

Dated the 30th day of April, 2019

C.D Case No. 92 of 2016

                                                   Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President

                                                                2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member

                                                                3. Afsara Begum, Member

Sri Raghunath Mahakud,

S/o Late Fakir Mahakud,

Vill/Po: Sahapur,

Ps: Tihidi,

Dist: Bhadrak

                                                        ……………………. Complainant

            (Versus)

1. The Branch Manager, U.Co. Bank,

At: Rajnagar, Gadi,

Po: Samantaraipur,

Dist: Bhadrak​

2. The Concerned Authority, Zonal Office, U.Co. Bank,

Building- 3rd Floor, C-Z, Ashok Nagar, Unit- II,

Bhubaneswar, Pin- 751009

3. The Concerned Authority, U. Co. Bank,

Corporate Office, 10, B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata- 700001 (West Bengal)

Dist: Bhadrak

                                                      …………………………..Opp. Parties

Advocate For the Complainant: Sri S. C. Tripathy, Adv

Advocate For the OP No. 1: Sri C. R. Nath, Adv

Advocate For the OP No. 2 & 3: Set Ex-parte

Date of hearing: 18.12.2018

Date of order: 30.04.2019

SRI RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT

That, the complainant has alleged against the O.Ps having aggrieved with their deficiency of service against the complainant, are to the effect that the complainant has initiated a savings bank account bearing A/c No. 11570610004258 in the year 2013. The complainant made contact with the OP No. 1 to avail a loan for his livelihood and for construction of a house for living. The OP No. 1 persuaded the complainant to provide him a loan. The OP No. 1 has also promised to cooperative in his business after availing the loan. According to the advice of OP No. 1, the complainant deposited margin money, processing fees, land documents etc. before the OP No. 1. The OP No. 1 also took some blank signed cheques and blank signed agreement papers from this complainant for the purpose of loan. The OP No. 1 assured the complainant to provide him a copy of loan agreement within 31.05.2013. The OP No. 1 alos promised the complainant to intimate amount of each E.M.I and tenure of laon within 15 days of disbursement of loan. The OP No. 1 has sanctioned loan of Rs 3,50,000/- . The complainant has availed the loan in 5 installments such as follows on dt. 06.05.2013 Rs 1,00,000/-, dt. 20.05.2013 Rs 1,00,000/-, 24.06.2013 Rs 1,00,000/-, 09.07.2013 Rs 20,000/- and 15.07.2013 Rs 30,000/-. The complainant went to the OP No. 1 on 31.05.2013 requested him to serve him a copy of the loan agreement for the purpose of knowing the amount of EMI and the tenure of the loan etc. The OP No. 1 assured him to provide the same within a month but the OP No. 1 has failed to do so and unable to keep his promise. The complainant asked the copy of the loan agreement again and again to the OP No. 1 but all the request became in vain. The complainant has also alleged that in spite of paying Rs 1,37,000/- to the OP No. 1 towards the said loan but once again the OP No. 1 demanded Rs 1,36,000/- imposing has interest upon the complainant. The complainant also proposed the OP No. 1 to settle the loan but, the OP No. 1 willingly avoided the same.

The cause of action of this case arose on 26.08.2016 when the OP No. 1 refused to provide the loan agreement, within the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

The complainant ahs sought for the reliefs such as follows:-

1. To pass an order directing the OP No. 1 to provide the loan agreement to the complainant.

2. To exempt the excess amount which is beyond calculation amounting to Rs 1, 36,000/- upon the complainant imposed by the OP No. 1.

3. To award Rs 3,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and cost of the litigation.

4. To award any other relief or reliefs the learned Forum deems fit.

Documents filed by the complainant (Xerox copies):-

1. Bank pass book- 3 sheets.

2. Sanction letter- 1 sheet- Annexure- 1 issued on 03.05.2013.

3. Statements of accounts- five sheets- Annexure- 2.

4. S.B A/c- three sheets- Annexure- 3.

On the other hand the OP No. 1 appeared in this Forum through his concerned Advocate and filed written version. The OP No. 2 & 3 have neither appeared in this Forum nor filed their written versions. The contents of the written version filed by the OP No. 1 is that he has challenged the cause of action, maintainability, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as well as limitation. The OP No. 1 has also denied the allegations of the complainant against him. The entire allegations made by the complainant against the OP No. 1 are denied by him. In fact the complainant went to the OP No. 1 and requested him to sanction a house building loan with a limit of Rs 3,50,000/-. The OP No. 1 being satisfied and observing all formalities, after verifying all the relevant papers, the OP sanctioned a house building loan of Rs 3,50,000/- only and served a copy of the sanction letter on dt. 03.05.2013 to the complainant and in that letter all the information’s, instructions, terms and conditions have been mentioned and the OP requested the complainant to return the copy of the sanction letter to the bank with his signature as a token of acceptance of terms of sanction. After going through the sanction letter being satisfied with the terms and conditions described in the sanction letter accepted the same and has returned the sanction letter to the OP No. 1 after putting his signature. The OP No. 1 opened a loan account in the name of the complainant vide A/c bearing No- 11570610004258 on dt. 03.05.2013 for Rs 3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only). The complainant has also opened a S.B A/c bearing No- 11570100003377 on dt. 03.05.2013 before the OP No. 1. Then after the OP has transferred total loan amount of Rs 3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) to the S.B account of the complainant from his above loan account. All the transaction are indicating from the statement of the account. ( copy of the said statement of loan account & S.B account of the complainant has been filed along with this written version and marked as Annexure 2 & 3 respectively). The following facts are not admitted by the OP No. 1/the complainant has never requested to provide to copy of loan agreement and to know the amount of EMI, tenure of loan. Neither any signed nor any blank signed the cheque OP No. 1/ the OP No. 1 has never imposed an amount of Rs 1,36,000/- towards excess interest upon the complainant. The OP No. 1 has sought for the relief of dismissal of this complaint.

The OP No. 2 & 3 set ex-parte due to non appearance and non filing of written version.

Documents filed by the complainant (Xerox copies).

1. Sanction letter- 1 sheet- Annexure- 1.

2. Statements of accounts- 3 sheets- Annexure- 2.

3. Statements of accounts- 3 sheets- Annexure- 3.

4. Copy of the loan agreement- 5 sheets- Annexure- 4.    

OBSERVATION

We have already perused the complaint and the documents filed by the complainant as well as the written version and the documents filed by the OP No. 1. The OP No. 2 & 3 have neither appeared nor filed their written version and the documents on behalf of them. Hence they have been set ex-parte. We have reached at the following findings after the observation.

The OP No. 1 has challenged the maintainability on the ground that is limitation and cause of action. But the complainant has clearly reflected in his complaint that the OP No. 1 has finally refused to provide the copy of the loan agreement on 26.08.2016. On the other hand the complaint has been filed on 30.08.2016. So we have found that the cause of action arose on 26.08.2016. It reveals that limitation of this case has not been barred. The cause of action arose on the date when the OP No. 1 has refused to supply the copy of the agreement for the last time. Hence the findings is that the case is maintainable.

The complainant ahs sought for the reliefs of supply of copy of the loan agreement and exemption of excess interest Rs 1,36,000/-. But the OP No. 1 has admitted in his written version that the complainant has never asked for any copy of the agreement and not imposed any excess interest RS 1,36,000/- upon the complainant. As the OP No. 1 has denied the facts in position of excess amount upon the complainant, so nothing is to be discussed more about that. The subject matter is that it is mandatory the OP No. 1 should supply the copy of the loan agreement to the complainant receiving his required fees for supplying the said documents. If the complainant was ignorant, and asked for the said agreement orally, so it is duty of the OP No. 1 to advise him to ask for the copy of the said agreement by writing. Denying supplying the copy of the loan agreement to the complainant and imposition of excess interest of amount upon the complainant orally is tantamounting of deficiency of service. The complainant has not filed documents or demand notice for imposition of excess amount of interest. But it is mandatory to supply the copy of the loan agreement to the complainant if he has asked for. Secondly the OP No. 2 & 3 have avoided to appear before the Forum and to filed their respective written versions. If they would have appeared and filed their written versions some truth would have been come to the lime light. As they have avoided the order of this Forum, so there must be some lacunas behind them. As they are the higher authorities of the OP No. 1, they should have defended on behalf of the said OP. They have never uttered a single sentence in favour of the OP No. 1.   Hence it is ordered;      

ORDER

The complaint be and the same is allowed on part against O.Ps. The OP No. 1 is here by directed to supply a copy of the loan agreement to the complainant on receipt of written application and required fees and also directed to calculate interest at the agreed rate as stipulated in the sanction order already supplied to the complainant. This order must be complied within 30 days from the date of issue.

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 30th April, 2019 under my hand and seal of the Forum.