DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                           C.C NO. 43 OF 2013

Present:

                Sri Rabindranath Mishra             - President

                Miss Sudhira laxmi Pattanaik       - Member.

Prasanta kumar panda, aged 40 years

Prop: Prasanta Enterprises.

S/O: Debraj panda Village/PO/PS: Tikabali.

Dist: Kandhamal, Odisha                                                   ……………..  Complainant.

              Versus.

Branch manager,

S.B.I, Tikabali branch.

AT/PO/PS: Tikabali Dist: kandhamal                             ………………. OPP. Parties.

For the Complainant: Sri Bhagaban Mohanty, Advocate and his associates. 

For the OPP. Parties: Sri V.V, Ramadas, Advocate and his associates.

Date of Order: 30-09-2015

O R D E R

                                    The case of the Complainant in short is that he had availed an agriculture loan from the S.B.I, Tikabali Branch by pledging N.S.C amounting Rs. 1, 70,000/-. On 31-05-2010, the said loan account was closed after due payment by the Complainant, but the O. P Bank has not returned the N.S.C certificates to him. On 04-07-2013 the Complainant had given a letter to the O.P to release the N.S.C certificates but on 29-10-2013 the Opposite Party intimated him that the same were encashed after maturity and 5 Bankers Cheque amounting Rs. 2,76,915/- was given to the Complainant . As the Opposite party has not given any information regarding the encashment of the N.S.C till 29-10-2013, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P Bank. Hence, he has filed this Complaint claiming Rs. 72,000/- as compensation for his mental agony including the cost of litigation.

                                    The case of the Opposite parties as per his version is that the loan account of the Complainant was closed on 17-09-2010. Thereafter the N.S.C certificates were enchased after maturity and the amount in shape of Bankers Cheques were given to the Complainant. The Bankers Cheque does not bear any

-2-

interest .So, the O.P Bank has not committed any deficiency in service on their part. Hence, the O.P is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed.

                                    The further case of the O.P is that this complaint is barred by law of limitation and there was no cause of action to file this case against the O.P bank.

                                    During the course of hearing the Complainant has filed an affidavit in token of his evidence .He was examined and cross examined. One witness Sri Surendra Nath Parida also filed an affidavit on behalf of the Opposite Party. He was also examined and cross examined .Exhibit -1 to Exhibit - 06, were marked on behalf of the Complainant, and Exhibit- A to Exhibit –B were marked on behalf of the Opposite party. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for both the parties. We have gone through the complaint petition, the version filed by the O.P, the affidavits filed by both the parties and the documents filed by the parties in support of their case. It is seen from the Xerox copies of the Bankers Cheque that the same were issued on 10-07-2010. It is admitted by the Opp. Party that on 17-09-2010 the original banker’s cheques were returned to the Complainant. It is also seen from Exhibuit -2 and Exhibit -3 that the loan accounts was closed on 31-05-2010. But it reveals from Exhibit –A and Exhibit –B that the loan account was closed on 17-09-2010. But it is admitted by both the parties that Bankers cheques were prepared on 10-07-2010. In absence of clear evidence regarding the above contradictions on the closing date of the loan Account, we decide not to enter in to the legal controversy pertaining to the date of closure of the loan amount.

                                    The next point of consideration is that Whether the O.P bank has committed any deficiency in service by returning the Bankers cheques to the Complainant after more than two months from the date of preparation of the instruments. It is admitted fact that Bankers cheque does not bear any interest. But with-helding the Bankers cheque of huge amount for more than 2 months proves the negligence of the O.P. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

                                   The Complainant  has stated in Para -4 of his complaint that the O.P has not given the above Bankers Cheques to the applicant till the letter of S.B.I, Tikabali Branch vide letter No. 37/147 dated 29-10-2013 . So, it is clear that the Complainant has received the Bankers Cheques. But no explanation was given by him regarding the delay of his letter dated 04-07-2013 (Exhibit -2) which was given to the O.P after 3 years from the date of closure of the loan account. So this part of claim is not clerly established by the Complainant.

                                    In the above circumstances, the complaint is allowed in part. The Complainant is entitled to get interest from 10-07-2010 to 17-09-2010. Hence, the O.P is directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% annum on the amount of  

                                                                                                                -3-

Rs.276,915/-from the period 10-07-2010 to 17-09-2010 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs. 276,915/-

to the Complainant in shape of fresh Bankers Cheques on production of the old Bankers Cheques by the Complainant as the validity period has already been expired in the meantime.  

                                    The C.C is disposed- of accordingly. Supply free copies of this order to both the parties.

                                                                                   MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT