Orissa

Cuttak

CC/360/2023

Rama chandra Dash - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Ms.D Mohanty

27 May 2024

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

          C.C No.360/2023

Mr. Rama Chandra Dash,

S/o: Kartika Chandra Dash,

At:Akarapada,Nalipur,Via:Bali Chandrapur,

               Cuttack,Odisha,Pin-754005.                                         ...Complainant

 

          Vrs.

 

1.     The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India(SBI),

Bali Chandrapur,Dist:Jajpur,

Branch Code-04857,Pin-754285.

 

  2.       The Managing Director,

State Bank of India(SBI),

State Bank Bhaban, Madam Cama Road,Mumbai,

                 Pin-400021.

 

3.       The Regional Manager,

The Regional Office of State Bank of India,

At:Bhubaneswar, Near Capital Police Station,

                 Unit-1,Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khurda

                 Pin-751009.                                                                    ...Opp.Parties

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    25.10.2023

Date of Order:  27.05.2024

 

For the complainant:             Ms. Diptirani Mohanty,Advocate.

For the O.P no.1        :            Mr. P.V.Balakrishna,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.2 & 3 :             None.  

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had availed a home loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the O.P no.1 which he had repaid alongwith it’s interest thereon. But the O.Ps had only returned his ROR.  They have not returned his LIC bond.  In this connection though he had approached the O.Ps on several occasions, they had not taken any step but had only given false assurances to that effect.  The complainant being disgusted, had approached this Commission seeking direction to the O.Ps in order to return his LIC bond to him and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for violation of his consumer rights, another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for his mental harassment and further a sum of Rs.50,000/- to meet his litigation expenses.

          Together with his complaint petition, he has annexed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Out of the three O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not preferred to contest this case, O.Ps no.2 & 3 have been set exparte vide order dated 12.12.2023.  However, O.P no.1 has contested this case and has filed his written version.  As per the written version of O.P no.1, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and this Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  O.P no.1 admits that when the loan account of the complainant was closed, the ROR was returned to him but as regards to the return of LIC Bond, necessary intimation was made to the LIC Officer with regard to handing over the surrender value. The LIC has intimated that the said policy has elapsed and is not inforce due to non-payment of premium by the complainant.  As such, it is urged by the O.P no.1 that there is no malafide intention or deficiency in service on the part of O.P no.1 and the petition as filed by the complainant is to be rejected with cost.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P no.1, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no. ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the complaint petition, written version, written notes of submissions as filed from the side of complainant and O.P no.1 as well as the copies of documents available in the case record, it is noticed that admittedly, the complainant had availed a home loan from O.P no.1 by pledging his LIC Bond as well as ROR of his house.  It is also admitted that after closure of the loan account, the ROR was returned to the complainant but his LIC Bond was not returned to him.  In this context, the plea of the O.P no.1 through his written version is that necessary intimation was made to the LIC Officer with regard to handing over the surrender value but it was intimated that the said LIC policy had lapsed and was not in force due to non-payment of the premium by the complainant.  In his written notes of submission, the O.P no.1 has mentioned that the complaint petition is not maintainable since because LIC is not made a party and therefore due to non-joinder of the party, the complaint petition as filed is not maintainable. O.P no.1 has not filed any scrap of document in order to apprise this Commission that infact there was any communication made with the complainant in this context.  Be that as it may, when the complainant had pledged necessary documents while availing the home loan that which is admitted to have been closed, it is the duty of the O.P no.1 in order to return the loanee/complainant all the pledged documents when there is no requirement to retain the said documents further.  The plea taken by the O.P no.1 here in this case that the LIC policy of the complainant had lapsed; has no nexus to the present case because O.P no.1 has no business to find out if the LIC Bond of the complainant had lapsed or was inforce after closure of the loan account.  When O.P no.1 admits that the loan account opened in favour of the complainant was closed and also when he admits to have returned the ROR of the complainant, it is not understood as to how could the O.P no.1 had preferred to retain the LIC Bond of the complainant and find out if the same was inforce or had lapsed. The same should have been ascertained prior to the disbursement of the loan amount in favour of the complainant and not thereafter.  Such facts and circumstances of this case leads this Commission to come to a conclusion that infact there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps as alleged by the complainant here in this case.

Issue no.i.

          While challenging the maintainability of the case, O.P no.1 has urged that the complainant has submitted false affidavit here in this case that he is residing within the jurisdiction of Cuttack district but he actually belongs to the Jajpur district.  This Commission has no entity to probe as regards to the place of residence of the complainant when an affidavit to that effect has been submitted and when the O.P urges that the said affidavit is falsely made, it is O.P no.1 to provide cogent rebuttal evidence to counter the same. 

The other contention of the O.P no.1 that the case is not maintainable since because the complainant had not made the LIC of India a party to this case.  But keeping the facts and circumstances of this case in mind, this Commission feels that the LIC of India is in no way a necessary or proper party to this case.  Accordingly, the case as filed by the complainant is definitely maintainable and the issue in this regard as raised by O.P no.1 is not at all convincing.  As such, this issue also goes in favour of the complainant.

 

 

Issue no.iii.

          From the above discussions, it is noticed that the complainant is definitely entitled to the compensation as prayed by him but ofcourse to a reasonable extent.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                          ORDER

          The case is decreed on contest against the O.P no.1 and exparte against O.Ps no.2 & 3.  All the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards his mental agony and harassment and further a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards his litigation expenses.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 27^th day of May,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

 

                                                                               Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                       President

                     

 

                                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                             Member