Orissa

Debagarh

CC/8/2019

Baikunthanath Sahu, aged 50 yrs, S/o-Late Trithabasi Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Utkal Grameen Bank, Tinkbir - Opp.Party(s)

28 May 2019

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH.

C.C No-08/2019

Present-     Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra,President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member(W)& Smt. Arati Das, Member.

 

            Baikunthanath Sahu, aged about 50 years,

S/O-Late Tirthabasi Sahu,

R/O-vill- Jatianali, P.O- Naulipada,

P.S-Reamal, Dist-Deogarh.                                            ...   Complainant.

 

Versus

1. The Branch Manager,

          Utkal Grameen Bank, Tinkbir,

          P.O-Tinkbir, P.S-Reamal, Dist-Deogarh.  

 

2. The Field Officer,

          Utkal Grameen Bank, Bhatra Road, Sambalpur,

          P.S/Dist-Sambalpur.                                                       …    Opposite Parties.

 

For the Complainant                            :- Nemo.

For the Opp.Party No.1 &2               :- Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate.

 

DATE OF HEARING -22.05.2019, DATE OF ORDER -28.05.2019

Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member(W)- Brief facts of the case is that, the Complainant, in the year 1999 has deposited Rs.10,000/- as fixed deposit in the bank of the O.P-1 and at maturity he received Rs.20,928/- as maturity value  and again kept the said amount  as fixed deposit in the year 2007. But in the same year he availed Rs.20,000/-as loan against the fixed deposit and had repaid of Rs.15,440/- to the O.P-1. In 2009, again he made another fixed deposit for Rs.20,000/-in the said bank  having maturity value of Rs.40,000/-.When the Complainant opted to withdraw the maturity value  the O.P-1 denied to let him withdraw the maturity amount and informed him that he can withdraw  only after repayment of the loan outstanding in his name  in the bank of the O.P-1.But the Complainant stated as both the fixed deposits were separately created hence he has the right to withdraw the maturity amount at any time.  As the OP-1 denied giving the advantage of withdrawal of the said amount the Complainant has filed a complaint petition to seek relief as the O.Ps supposed to have committed deficiency in service. But the Advocate for the O.Ps stated that though the Complainant has made a fixed deposit Rs.10,000/- he has availed Rs.9,000/- as loan against it. On maturity the Complainant would have availed Rs.20,928/-but on dtd. 27.09 2005 he has received Rs. 15,128/- against the maturity amount after deducting the outstanding amount of Rs.5,800/-against the loan. Again the Complainant made another fixed deposit for Rs.14,000/- and later he withdrawn Rs. 10,000/- as loan. On maturity he would have received Rs. 19,326/-  but the O.P-1 after deduction of loan amount with interest and other charges lying in the name of the Complainant amounting to Rs. 3,938/- credited an amount of Rs.15,388/- as residual maturity amount in the account of the complainant. Again the O.P-1 has disbursed Rs.20,000/- as loan without demanding any security  and the Complainant repaid Rs.15440/- and the rest amount of loan were remained unpaid. The Complainant on dd. 27.04.2009 made an F.D of RS. 20,000/- which has the maturity amount of Rs.40,030. As the loan outstanding amount against the Complainant was RS. 41,860/- for both the loan, the O.P-1 has several times informed the Complainant to repay the loan but the complainant did not respond. Finally the O.P-1 has deducted an amount from the maturity amount and the residual amount of Rs.657/- is transferred to his saving bank account No. 12151018257. he matter was communicated to the Complainant through letter by the O.P-1.  

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that here exists a Consumer Complaint the Complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps as he has saving bank accounts with the O.P-1.He has neither paid all dues outstanding in his name for the loan availed on fixed deposits nor settled the account in spite of several requests and reminders by the O.Ps, rather he became aggrieved when the O.P-1 denied allowing the Complainant to withdraw the maturity amount as defaulter. But according to Reserve Bank of India there exists a lien between the Bank and the debtor which defines as “the right of a creditor in possession of goods, securities or any other assets belonging to the debtor to retain them until the debt is repaid, provided that there is no contract expressed or implied , to the contrary .It is the right to retain possession of specific goods or securities or movables of which the ownership vests in some other person and the possession can be retained till the owner discharges the debt or obligation to the possessor. It is a legal claim by one person on the property of another as security for payment of debt”. Again if a person becomes default for several months, the bank can deduct money from his savings accounts or refuse to pay money from the fixed deposit when it matures. Again the photocopy of the documents has been produced on the record which shows the maturity amounts of different value has been received by the Complainant on different dates by affixing signatures on the revenue stamps which purports to have been signed the Complainant as he sometimes singed as Baikunthanathh Sahu and sometimes Baikuntha Sahu.  He categorically denied that these signatures belong to him. However, he admitted that the above said bank account No. 12151018257 belongs to him. This matter has been well settled in the case of “HDFC Bank Ltd. vs Ashok Kumar Sinha” decided by “Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi” on 8 February, 2013.The statement of the Bank account has been filed before us. Its relevant portion from 08.12.1998 to 22.02.2019 is attached with the case records. As the allegations against the OPs could not be established hence they have not committed any “Deficiency in Service” U/S -2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and the case is dismissed and disposed off.

Office is directed to supply 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 28^th day of May 2019 under my hand and seal of this Forum.

 

       I agree                                          I agree

       MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT                                      MEMBER (W)

 

                                                 Dictated & Corrected by me

                                   

                                                             MEMBER (W)