DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 34 OF 2016

Sarat Chandra Sahoo (56 yrs),

S/O- Late Natabara Sahoo,

RO: Gumadera, PO/PS: Belpahar, 

PO / Dist: Jharsuguda,Odisha…………………………..………………Complainant.

Versus

Branch Manager,

Central Bank of India, Belpahar Branch,

PO/PS- Belpahar, Dist- Jharsuguda, Odisha.………....………………………..Opp. Party.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                                   Shri P.R.Singhdeo, Adv. & Associates.              

For the Opp. Party                            Shri N.K.Naik, Adv. & Associates.

Date of Order: 24.11.2016

Present

                                              1. Shri S.L Behera, President.

                                              2. Shri S.K. Ojha, Member.

Shri S.L. Behera, President :-   The brief facts of the complaint case is that, the complainant is a Saving Bank Account holder and R.D Account holder of O.P and was depositing his amount of salary since 1981. In the month of January 2016 the complainant approached for housing loan before the O.P to make his house suitable for marriage of his son along with required documents. The O.P satisfied and asked the complainant to arrange two Nos. of guarantors which the complainant arranged the same. The complainant visited several times for sanction of his loan but the  O.P ignored the complainant and denied to sanction the loan to the complainant, hence this case.

            On receiving notice the O.P. filed his written version through his counsel and submitted that the complainant has never applied for any loan and the O.P never promised for any loan to the complainant. The O.P Bank is guided by its rules and regulations of RBI as well as its own guidelines and the loan cannot be demanded as per one’s desire or whims or his wish  or it can be claimed a matter of right and prayed for case to be dismissed.

Heard from the parties and gone through the case record. The complainant filed nothing except Advocate Notice sent to the O.P. Advocate Notice is not sufficient material to prove the case of complainant, that whether the complainant has applied for any housing loan to the O.P and the O.P has agreed to sanction the said loan or not. Moreover it is upon the bank that to whom it will sanction any loan to his account holders or not. 

            As per the above circumstances, deficiency in service on the part of O.P is not found. Hence, the present case is hereby dismissed with no costs. 

            Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today the 24^th day of November’ 2016 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule.

I Agree.         

 S.K.Ojha, Member                                                              S.L.Behera, President                                                                                                                                 

Dictated and corrected by me.

     S.L.Behera, President