Orissa

Jagatsinghapur

CC/151/2014

Arnapurna Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

The collector jagatsinghpur - Opp.Party(s)

MR.S.K.MAHANTY

29 Oct 2022

ORDER

                                                                                         JUDGMENT

 

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking the following reliefs:

            “Direct the opposite party No.2 & 3 to credit Rs.1,02,000/- to the S/B account No.91135 of the complainant after debiting the same for the L.A. of the complainant No.13724 which was illegally credited and pay compensation and mental agony”.

            The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that, the complainant is a bonafied consumer under the opposite party No.2 & 3 and the opposite party No.4 is the medical Officer under whom the complainant is working and the opposite party No.1 is the administrative authority under whose limitation this illegal trade practice, deficiency in service was occurred and the opposite party No.5 is the treasury officer through whom the P.F. money of the complainant was credited to the account. In order to meet her legal necessity, medical expenses and daughter’s marriage the complainant was in urgent need of money. So getting no other option she has approached for withdrawal of her GPF to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/- before the opposite party No.4 and her application was allowed and a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- through Treasury officer, Balikuda was transferred to the S.B. account of the complainant which was with opposite party No.2 branch office vide account No.91135. When the matter stood thus and prior to this on 08.12.2012, the complainant availed a loan amounting Rs.1,50,000/- from the opposite party No.2 under UCO shelter scheme for repairing of her house which was to be repaid in 60 monthly equal installments from the salary of the complainant (Rs.4,200/- per month) and accordingly from the date of 1^st commencement i.e. dt.15.01.2013 of the repayment of the loan EMIs under loan account No.13724 the complainant was repaying the loan dues and when the GPF money was credited in the S.B. Account No.91135 of the complainant by the opposite party No.5, the opposite party No.2 instead of allowing the complainant to withdraw the money illegally debited Rs.1,02,000/- (1,01,584/-) out of the GPF money Rs.1,60,000/- of the complainant and illegally debited the same in the loan account of the complainant vide No.13724 and the rest Rs.58,000/- (58,805/-) was credited to the S.B. account of the complainant vide No.91135 on 11.11.2014.

            Opposite party No.2 appeared and filed his written version stating as under;

            It is not true to say that this illegal trade practices, deficiency in service was accrued on the part of this opposite party to the complainant. It is false to say that in order to meet her legal necessity like her mental expenses and daughter’s marriage the complainant was in urgent need for money and having no other option, she applied for withdrawal of her GPF to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/-. Application of complainant was allowed and a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- was sanctioned and transferred to the S.B. account of the complainant. The amount was deposited with opposite party No.2 bank through which account the complainant regularly withdrawing and her salary was also credited by her employer. This opposite party is a corporate body and disbursed the loan amount to the complainant as she is a Govt. employee and the loan amount would have been recovered from her salary as per her agreement and the said fact was also informed to the Treasury. The loan outstanding with the complainant for Rs.1,01,584/- and the amount lying in the Treasury is Rs.1,60,000/- and the treasury disbursed the said amount to the loan account of the complainant and after adjustment of the loan amount, the rest amount of Rs.58,805/- was credited to the savings bank account of the complainant. 

            The matter was heard and order reserved by our predecessors but could not be finalized for which fresh notice was issued/ parties are duly informed but the complainant did not appear. The counsel for opposite party No.2 has appeared and submitted that complainant has taken loan on 08.12.2012 amounting Rs.1,50,000/-, which was to be paid in 60 monthly installments but she was a defaulter. The complainant in her consumer complaint has stated that she was paying the installment from 15.01.2013 and the EMI of Rs.4,200/- was fixed to be paid for 60 months.

            Complainant had taken loan under UCO shelter scheme, which was to be repaid in 5 years in 60 installments as such the loan was to be repaid during the period from 15^th January, 2013 to 15^th December, 2018. The yearly amount to be paid amounts to Rs.50,400/- and the opposite party deducted Rs.1,02,000/- on 17.11.2014 when the GPF amount of complainant was withdraw from her GPF account. The complainant is a poor low class employee of Health Department and she had applied the amount for her daughter’s marriage and legal necessities. The complainant had paid Rs.4,200/- on 15.01.2013, 08.02.2013, 30.01.2014, 07.3.2014, 12.6.2014 (4200 X3), 24.7.2014, 30.9.2014 as per the account statement submitted with the consumer complaint. Both the parties silent regarding the amount paid, we have taken pain to find out the amount deducted from her account.

            Thus it is clear that the complainant was paying the amount not regularly but irregularly. When the complainant has paid considerable amount out of the loan which was to be entirely paid during 15^th December, 2018, the opposite party No.2 without giving any notice or opportunity to the complainant or deducting the exact amount to be paid by the complainant as on 13.11.2014 took the entire amount from her GPF withdrawal, which was to be utilized by the complainant for other purpose, the complainant has obtained the housing loan to be paid in five years and she was managing her requirement, it is ascertained from the facts that complainant was in need of money for which she had taken loan from opposite party No.2 and subsequently applied for GPF withdrawal which was credited to her S.B. account on 11.11.2014 but the opposite party No.2 took the entire amount on 17.11.2014 without giving any opportunity, notice and even informing the complainant, which in our considered opinion amounts to gross deficiency in service and it has unsettled her settled work to be done as per her family requirement. Deducting the entire amount of loan prior to more than three years, when the entire loan period is 5 years must have caused serious implications in the private life of the complainant. This issue to be decided in this case are; (I) Whether complainant is a consumer? (II) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice? (III) Who has caused deficiency in service or unfair trade practice?

            The complainant has filed this case against the Collector, Chief Medical Officer, Balikuda, Treasury Officer, Balikuda in addition to Branch Manager & G.M. of UCO Bank. The G.M., UCO Bank has no role to play. The State authority i.e. O.P. No.1, 4 & 5 have no role except sanctioning and crediting of the amount to the account of the complainant. 

            During this period already 8 years have passed the complainant must have settled the requirement which was to be performed in 2014 and it is because of pendency of this case for long period proper justice could not be delivered to complainant in time. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case we held that opposite party No.2 who was then (17.11.2014) working Branch Manager, UCO Bank is responsible for the inconvince and harassment caused to the complainant. The entire loan amount was to be paid during 15.12.2018 and the period already expired. The marriage of her daughter and legal necessities must have been fulfilled for which we are not directing to refund the GPF amount.

            We therefore held opposite party No.2 is responsible for the inconvince and harassment caused to the complainant which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.2 for which we impose cost of Rs.20,000/- as mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation, which is to be paid by the opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 is free to recover the same from the officer/official at fault. The order is to be executed within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.  Copy of order may be sent in complainant’s address. With the aforesaid observation and direction the consumer complaint is disposed of.