IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH.
C.C No-36/2016
Present- Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member (W), Smt. Arati Das, Member.
Tanu Chandra Behera aged about 65 years,
S/O-Late Purna Chandra Behera,
R/O-Traffic Chowk, Deogarh,
P.O/P.S/Dist-Deogarh. ... Complainant.
-Versus-
The Branch Manager,
Utkal Grameen Bank, Kalla Branch,
P.O/P.S/-Barkote,
Dist-Deogarh. … Opposite Party.
For the Complainant:-Sri P.K Dhal & Sri T. K Dash, Advocate.
For the Opp.Party :-Sri P.K.Ratha & Sri S.K Ratha, Advocate.
DATE OF HEARING -08.09.2017, DATE OF ORDER -30.07.2018
SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT- Brief facts of the case is that the Complaint is a consumer of the O.P who has availed a vehicle loan from the O.P for amounting to Rs. 2,55,000/- and on dtd. 16.12.2011 he has paid Rs. 30,000/-where the balance amount was remained unpaid Rs.17,862.50/-.But afterwards the Complainant has given a proposal to the O.P to settle the account by waiving the balance amount and issue a “No Due Certificate” to him. But the O.P has calculated the interest from the year 2001 to 2015 including the outstanding amount (of Rs 17,862.50) to Rs.2,41,044.50/- to be paid by the Complainant. Also the O.P conveyed his inability to settle the account as he cannot waive such a huge amount for which he has no authority for which he cannot issue No Due Certificate to the Complainant.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-
- Whether the Complainant is comer under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.1986.
- Whether the O.P has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?
Form the above discussion and materials available on the records we inferred that the Complainant is a consumer of the O.P as he has availed service from him by taking loan for personal requirement. The Complainant has availed a loan from the O.P amounting to Rs.2,55,000/-he has paid Rs. 3,72,284/- till dtd.16.12.2011. The Complainant has made his last payment on dtd. 16.12.2011 and the outstanding amount was Rs. 17,862.50/-. After that day the Complainant remained silent towards the settlement of account. Though the Complainant has alleged that he has made several requests to the O.P to settle the matter but there is no evidence on record. But after a long gap on dtd. 01.11.2016, the complainant had sent a pleader notice to the O.P. Hence it cannot be taken into consideration that the Complainant has made any effort to settle the account with the O.P. Again the O.P has presented a account status where he has calculated the interest from the year 2001 to 2015 which amounts to Rs. 2,41,044.50/- which includes delayed charges of the payment and penalty charges due to dishonour of cheques, charges towards seizure notice and seizure etc. for which O.P was entitled to recover from the Complainant as per terms of agreement. As all the above noted dues are yet to be paid by the Complainant, the O.P is unable to issue “No Due Certificate” to the Complainant. This matter has been well settled in the case of “Ashok Leyland Finance, vs Kiran Roopchand Lohade”, on 9 January, 2012 Hon’ble decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharastra. Hence the O.P has not committed any “Deficiency in Service” to the Complainant & he shall not be penalized. The Complaint petition of the Complainant is disallowed with no costs.
Office is directed to supply free copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.
Order is pronounced in the open Court today i.e 30th day of July 2018 under my hand and seal of this Forum.
I agree I agree
MEMBER (W) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Dictated & Corrected by me
PRESIDENT
