DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 64 of 2018.
Date of hearing : 18.06.2024.
Date of order : 02.07.2024.
Dated the 2nd day of July 2024.
Tapas Kumar Kar, S/o:- Late Padmanav Kar,
At:- Apartibindha, Po/PS:- Bhadrak (T),
Dist:- Bhadrak, Odisha.
. . . . . Complainant.
Vrs.
- The Concerned Authority, Syndicate Bank,
Kar Complex, At:-Rajghat By-pass Road,
Po/P.S:- Bhadrak (T), Dist:- Bhadrak, Pin-756100.
- The Concerned Authority, Syndicate Bank,
Door No.16/355 & 16/365A, Manipal-576 104,
Udupi District, Karnataka, India.
- The Bank Bazar, Kosmoone, 7th Floor,
Plot No.14, Ambottur, Industrial Estate,
Chennai, India, Pin-600058.………………..Opp. Parties.
P R E S E N T S.
1. Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,
2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.
Counsels appeared for the parties.
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri Subodha Ch.Tripathy, Advocate,
Counsel for the O.P.No.1 & 2: Sri Giridhari Nath, Advocate & Associates,
Counsel for the O.P. No. 3 : Ex-Parte.
J U D G M E N T.
SRI SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.
In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
A fact of the case is that, the complainant is a simple & innocent person. For his livelihood the complainant approached the O.P.No.1 to take a Loan. The O.P.No.1 promised to co-operate & provide proper service to the complainant after taking the loan. The O.P.1 being satisfied & after observing all formalities, sanctioned & disbursed a loan for Rs.30,000/- on dtd.09.04.2013 bearing A/c No.80781280000689-1 & also sanctioned & disbursed another loan of Rs.17,400/- on dtd.02.05.2017 bearing A/c No.80789940001358 to the complainant. The complainant paid all the EMIs/Loan amount to the O.P.1 as per commitment & requested to the O.P.1 to provide No Objection Certificate. The O.P.1 told the complainant to provide NOC within a month. The NOC & loan agreement documents were not given to the complainant in spite of several demands, for which the complainant is remaining in stress. The name of complainant is shown as defaulter in CIBIL (O.P.3) by the O.P.1. As such the O.Ps be compensated for their unfair trade practice, negligence to providing services to the complainant. The O.Ps refused to settle the claim of the complainant on dtd.24.08.2018. The cause of action of this case arose on 24.08.2018 when the O.Ps willfully avoided to settle the claim of the complainant. As such the complainant has compelled to file this case & prayed to direct the O.P.No.1 to provide No Objection Certificate to the complainant & to direct the O.P.3 to waive out the name of the complainant as defaulter of loan in CIBIL. The complainant has filed the documents i.e. 1) Copy of personal information, 2) Mailing Address, 3) Account details, & 4) Payment History (Upto 36 months).
The O.P.No.1& 2 submit that, the complainant borrowed loan amount to Rs.30,000/- on 09.04.2013 vide Account No.80781280000689 & further borrowed loan amounting to Rs.17,400/- on 03.05.2017 vide Account No. 80789940001358 from the O.P.1 & the complainant has repaid both the loans & his loan account have been closed by the bank. The complainant has never approached the O.P.1 for NOC or any copy of agreement paper. After closure of the accounts, the system is not showing any dues outstanding against the borrower relating to the aforesaid loan account. But the complainant being misguided by some miscreants he has filed the case against the bank. The complainant has also never approached before the O.Ps for taking back of loan agreement paper. But falsely the complainant alleged about refusal of settling the claim & in this regard the complainant has also not filed any scrap of paper to show that he received refusal from the bank about his allegations. On dtd.30.09.2022 the advocate for O.Ps have filed a petition where he has stated that the complaint raised by the complainant relating to the disputed has already been settled. The O.P. has removed the name from the defaulter list of CIBIL, which was shown as banking rule after the statutory period was passed. As such the claim/allegation about deficiency of service by the O.Ps does not arise. So the claim of the complainant being frivolous & vexatious. (1) The O.P. has filed a petition through his advocate on dtd.30.09.2022.
The O.P. No. 3 is ex-parte as on 03.06.2024.
Admittedly the complainant has repaid both the loans as per the terms of the loan with interest. Thereafter, it becomes the bounden duty of the Bank to return personal papers, if any and issue “No Dues Certificate” against the loan to the complainant. The OP Bank has put the name of the complainant in the loan defaulter list which is managed by CIBIL. However, it appears from the Memo filed by the OP Bank on 30/09/20222 that they have removed the name of the complainant from defaulter list. All these acts of the OP Bank amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant needs to be compensated for the harassment and mental agony suffered by him due to acts and omissions of the OP Bank.
O R D E R.
In the result, the complaint be & same is allowed. The OP Bank is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to complainant towards compensation and another Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of this order. In the event these OPs failed to comply the order within the stipulated time, they are to pay the same with 6% interest till the date they actually make payment. No order against OP No.3.
This order is pronounced in the Open Court on this the 2nd day of July 2024 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
