DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 15th day of October, 2018
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
C.D Case No. 44 of 2016
Bipin Kumar Sahoo
S/o Durga Charan Sahoo
Vill/Po: Bangarpadi
Ps: Bonth
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. The Chief Manager,
State Bank of India,
Bhadrak Branch
At/Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak
2. Tax Recovery Officer-cum-Regional Transport Officer, Bhadrak
At/Po: Charampa
Ps: Bhadrak
Dist: Bhadrak
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri G. Nath & Others
Counsel For the OP No. 1: J. K. Nayak & Others
Counsel For the OP No. 2: Ex-parte
Date of hearing: 16.05.2017
Date of order: 15.10.2018
BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
This dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
The complainant is a farmer and earns his livelihood out of farming. In order to adopt modern farming, the complainant asked OP No. 1 for providing credit support to acquire a tractor for agricultural purpose. The bank aggrieved to provide credit support for acquisition of a tractor and accordingly the complainant complied all required formalities and also deposited promoter’s contribution of Rs 67,000/- for sanction of loan. OP No. 1 sanctioned a loan sum of Rs 4,00,000/- on 22.04.2006 as against the total value of tractor is Rs 4,67,000/- vide loan A/c No. 11403746278. Soon after sanction of the loan the OP No. 1 placed order with DUNNOCK DEO at Charampa, Bhadrak for delivery of vehicle which was received by the complainant on the same day in good condition. The tractors were required was engaged in the work and out of the income generated, the complainant went on paying the loan installments regularly till June, 2010 but due to some financial hazards the loan dues for continues three months starting from July to October, 2010 could not be paid by the complainant as a result of which some amount of loan dues became arrear. In addition to that the National Govt. declared an Agril. loan waiver scheme during the month of October, 2010 so as to provide relief to the distressed farmers. Expecting such relief, the complainant did not pay the loan amount till May, 2011 and all of a sudden the OP No. 1 seized the tractor in bearing Regd. No. OR-22-A3078/79, illegally and unlawfully from the driver who was operating the tractor in the field on dt. 29.05.2011. Since then the complainant has, time and again, requested OP No. 1 to release the vehicle on full payment of arrear dues but the said OP turned a deaf ear to the polite approach of the complainant and did not take any action to release the vehicle. Finding no other way the complainant submitted a written intimation on dt. 09.06.2011, after 10 days of seizure of vehicle, to off route the vehicle as the tractor in question was under the possession of OP No. 1. After a month or two the complainant from reliable source came to know that the tractor has already been put to auction without any intimation to the complainant who is genuinely the owner of the tractor. Thinking the illegal action taken by the bank as a misfortune, the complainant kept himself silent for a short period and thereafter made repeated persuasion to OP No. 1 for release of the vehicle on payment full loan dues which was not considered by OP No. 1. But as a Bolt from the Blue, the Tax Recovery Officer-cum-Regional Transport Officer, Bhadrak issued a demand notice to the complainant vide No- 2653 dt. 28.08.2015 demand in payment of arrear tax of the tractor covering the period commencing from April, 2012 to March, 2013 which was very much illegal as the tractor was seized on 29.05.2011 and off-route intimation was given on 09.06.2011 addressing to the R.T.O, Bhadrak. When the complainant did not yield any result from both the O.Ps, being undone, filed this dispute before this Forum for proper adjudication with a prayer to direct OP No. 1 to pay Rs 7,80,000/- as compensation together with cost of litigation and Rs 7,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment.
OP No. 2, the Tax Recovery Officer-cum-Regional Transport Officer, Bhadrak submitted an application addressing to the President of the Forum seeking some materials annexed with the complaint which is none of the responsibilities of this Forum Office. At list OP No. 2 could have deputed a staff of the office to perused the required paper on record but did not do it even as on the date of the final hearing and even also did not prefer to file written version in his defense or raise any objection on the points of allegation detailed in the complaint. Therefore the said OP was set ex-parte.
OP No. 1, the financing bank, objected the claim of the complainant and contested the case. At the outset OP No. 1 raised the question of maintainability on the ground of cause of action, barred by limitation and no deficiency of service. The OP categorically objected that it has never caused any deficiency in providing proper service to the complainant as and when he has required the same. In addition to that the entire complaint does not reveal any specific date the cause of action arose.
Behind this litigation the OP No. 1 has narrated the facts in stating that that the complainant applied for a tractor loan from the bank which was considered by OP No. 1 on compliance of all formalities by the complainant. OP bank sanctioned a sum of Rs 4,00,000/-, as against total value of tractor of Rs 4,76,000/-, in favour of the complainant on 22.04.2006. After payment of Rs 76,000/- as promoter’s contribution by the complainant, the bank issued demand draft in favour of the supplier DUNNOCK DEO at Charampa, Bhadrak for supply of the tractor to the satisfaction of the complainant and accordingly the supplier made over the tractor to the complainant on the same day. In course of time the complainant went on paying the loan installments, even though not matching the loan installments as prefixed, which resulted in making the loan account over due and NPA. Finally after four years when the complainant did not pay any amount to the credit of his loan account, the OP bank served the legal notice upon the complainant which did not yield any result towards recovery of the loan. As an alternative remedy the OP bank repossessed the vehicle on 29.05.2011 from the driver of said tractor and served a copy of the inventory list to the driver. The OP bank also advised the complainant to come forward for an amicable settlement to repay the loan at a go but the complainant did not respond to the advice of the bank rather remained adamant without caring for the consequence. Since this dispute has been filed by the complainant without any deficiency of service and cause of action, this bears no merit for which liable to be dismissed with cost.
Perused the complaint, written versions submitted by OP bank, materials on record and observed as detailed below.
1. On the question of maintainability the OP bank as raised that the tractor was repossessed on 29.05.2011 due to default in payment of loan installments consecutively for more than five months violating the terms of the loan agreement even if the complainant did not respond to the repeated notice served by the bank. Finding no other way and providing sufficient opportunity to the complainant, the OP bank put the seized asset on auction and the sell proceeds was appropriated to the loan account of the complainant. Since then the complainant has neither filed any objection nor communicated to the bank expressing his wish on the auction and sell of the vehicle. Hence it is crystal clear that neither the bank has caused any deficiency of service nor there is any distance from the date cause of action arose. Therefore the case is liable to be dismissed.
2. According to the OP the loan was advanced during April, 2006 and due to irregular payment the loan was also became overdue and NPA in the year 2009 as reviled from accounts statements submitted by the bank. Due to irresponsiveness of the complainant, the OP bank was compelled to seize the asset on 29.05.2011. If the date seizure would be taken into account as the date of cause of action, this dispute was to be filed on or before 29.05.2013 but the instant case has been filed in this Forum on 11.04.2016 nearly after three years from the date of expiry of limitation period. Hence this case suffers from barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed.
3. It pertinent to mention here that in order to get the money recovered from the complainant, the OP bank has filed a money suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division, Bhadrak) vide No. 748/2015- III for adjudication the decree of which has been awarded in favour of the OP bank. When the Money Suit was pending in the Hon’ble Civil Court, this dispute has been raised in the Consumer Forum which contravenes the settled provisions of the Law of land. Therefore this dispute is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
4. The most important issue in the complainant is that the Tax Recovery Officer-cum-Regional Transport Officer, Bhadrak has served a notice upon the complainant on dt. 28.05.2015 for payment of Rs 8,100/- towards arrear tax covering the period from April, 2012 to March, 2013. During the period as mentioned in the aforesaid letter, the tractor was under the possession of the OP bank as the same was seized on 29.05.2011. That apart, the complainant after seizure of vehicle has properly intimated the Regional Transport Authority on dt. 09.06.2011, ten days after seizure of the vehicle, to off route the tractor but it is astonishing that the Transport Authority has issued the tax demand notice after four years from the date of receipt of requesting letter to off route the tractor from the date of seizure. This clearly proves that the office of the RTO is not serious on their legitimate duties and doing superfluously at their whim. Since the tractor was hypothecated to the financing bank and after obtaining seizure intimation to the complainant, the Tax Recovery Authority should have issued notice to the bank instead of issuing notice to the complainant. Such an action of RTO leads to believe that there was nexus between the OP bank and RTO who have done the mischief to serve notice upon the complainant for unnecessary harassment. Hence the allegation on this particular point made by the complainant holds good.
5. The OP bank, right from the beginning, that is, from the date of finance till the date of auction of the seized asset has adopted proper and legal procedure to complete the process. But the Tax Recovery Officer-cum-Regional Transport Officer, Bhadrak has served the notice upon the complainant illegally and unlawfully which indicates the vested interest of the RTO, Bhadrak is contributing to the mental agony and harassment of the complainant.
From the analysis as made in the foregoing paragraphs and considering the facts from all angles this Forum is opinion that the allegations made against OP No. 1 by the complainant seems to be meaningless and the allegations against OP No. 2 holds good. Therefore it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is dismissed against OP No. 1 and allowed ex-parte against OP No. 2. OP No. 2 is directed to exempt the tax imposed on the complainant and pay litigation cost of Rs 2,000/- for unnecessarily inflicting/ causing mental agony of the complainant. This must be implemented/complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 15th October, 2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
