Date of filing :- 11/06/2014.
Date of Order:-14/10/2015.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 09 of 2014
Biswambar Sahu, S/o Late Chandramani Sahu, R/o Santipara, Attabira, aged about 65(sixty five) years, Po/Ps/Tah. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-V e r s u s -
Secretary, Attabira, SCS Ltd, Po/Ps. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh.
Branch Manager, Attabira of S.D.C Bank Ltd. Bargarh At/Po/Ps. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh
..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant:- Sri M.K. Satpathy, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties :- Sri R.K.Satpathy, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Mrs Anjali Behera ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Member (w), I/C President.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt. 14/10/2015. -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Smt. A.Behera, Member(w), I/C President .
Brief Note an facts of the Case :-
Complainant files this Complaint against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency of services with regard to non disbursement of parts of sanctioned loan to the Complainant for pisciculture. Complainant applied for a pisciculture loan to the Opposite Party No.1(one) for digging tank for the purpose which was duely approved by the District Fishing Officer.
Opposite Party No.1(one) recommended the loan application to Opposite Party No.2(two) for sanctioning and Head of office of Opposite Party No.2(two) sanctioned an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees four lakh)only for the project and released an amount of Rs.1,90,000/-(Rupees one lakh ninety thousand)only for digging of the tanks. After digging the tank Complainant submitted the utilization certificate to release further loan amount. But no request has been answered rather Opposite Party No.1(one) served a demand notice amounting Rs.3,01,360/-(Rupees three lakh one thousand three hundred sixty)only in January-2014 on the Complainant. Due to non release of the sanctioned loan amount in time, Complainant was not able to complete the project neither earned any money rather bearing the burden of interest on the sanctioned loan.
Under the above circumstances Complainant claims compensation for deficiency of services caused to him for all the mental and pecuniary losses incurred by the Complainant in the process.
Complainant files the following documents to substantiate his standings and relies on them.
Demand notice from Opposite Party No.1(one).
Copy of the pass book/ membership of SCS.
Complainant on being admitted for adjudication Opposite Parties were issued notices duely to appear and file their versions on the allegations made against them.
Opposite Party appeared on 25 th August-2014 and filed their version on 17/11/2014 denying are this allegations against them.
Opposite Parties files the following documents to substantiate their submission and relies an them.
Recommendation of ADF-CUM-CEO FFDA, Bargarh.
Sheet of details of Borrower.
Loan application form.
Resolution of the loan Sub committee of the society.
Letter of sanction.
C.M. Band.
Resolution of loan Sub committee of the society.
Loan Bond of the society.
Deed of guarantee.
Ledger abstract of KCE 011103037.
Bank ledger estract.
Demand notice Dt. 08/08/2013.
Reply of Borrower.
Hearing was done in the presence of both parties wherein they submitted their contentions in great details referring the documents filed.
Heard the matter, perused the petitions and documents attached to the case record and following findings come out after due considerations to all the above .
Facts like Complainant being members of the Opposite Parties, application of loans sanctioning etc are admitted facts and affirmed documentarily.
An amount of Rs.4,90,000/-(Rupees four lakh ninety thousand)only has been sanctioned in total from which Rs.1,90,000/-(Rupees one lakh ninety thousand)only has been released. But the 2nd part of the loan is not released from the documents filed by the Opposite Parties it is evident that loan for pisciculture has been sanctioned to the Complainant twice how and why not explained why a second loan for the same purpose has been sanctioned is also not well explained when no recovery from the old loan has been occured.
Countering the version of the Opposite Parties that ass no proper utilization certificate has been filed the 2nd and 3rd phase loan has not been disbursed as per the agreed terms, Complainant contended that they have filed the utilization certificate on 10/02/2010 properly through the CEO, Attabira and requested to call the concerned the then officer Makunda Panda to depose before the Forum. Being allowed the named FEO, Makunda Panda noticed by the Forum to appear for deposition with documents who appeared on Dt.11/05/2015 and filed xerox copy of the utilization certificate Dt.10/02/2010. The utilization report filed shows that the visiting officer remarked that only work amounting to Rs.78,000/- (Rupees seventy eight thousand)only has been done and no work is going an at the time of filing of the utilization report and as per agreement the depth has to be completed before disbursing the second and third phase of the loan and the report is signed by the Complainant.
On Dt.23/06/2015 Sri Makunda Panda the their Fisheries Extension Officer appeared and deposed before the Forum and duely cross examined.
Sri Makunda Panda affirmed the filing of the utilization certificate by him though the loan proposal was forwarded by his predecessor. He speaks about a field visit but no documents about such visit on report is filed before the Forum though claims it is to be made on Dt.10/02/2010 abseed. Also affirms that the required water spread area of 1.8 hector has not been completed and money utilized is also half the amount sanctioned. He wrote about Rs.78,000/-(Rupees seventy eight thousand)only being utilized from the Ist installment but how he arrived on this is not answered neither any documents to this effect filed.
The reply of the Complainant to the Demand notice is not satisfactory as there he contended that due to lack of funds he could not complete the Ist part of the work included in the project. But the utilization certificate says only Rs.78,000/-(Rupees seventy eight thousand)only has been utilized so for till the date of visit by the designated officer and it is apparent that still a good sum must be available with the Complainant as the Ist installment released was of Rs.1,90,000/-(Rupees one lakh ninety thousand) only. Besides a second loan also has been sanctioned on his favour which creates doubts in relations to the intention of the Complainant. Besides on that reply complainant speaks about legal action which again shows that Complainant was already prepared to litigate.
When Complainant Ist got sanctioned a loan of Rs.4,90,000/-(Rupees four lakh ninety thousand)only for pisciculture and the same is not properly worked out and not got the second installment how and why he applied and got sanctioned a second loan for the same purpose is not clean. The facts about whether any money has been disbursed out of the second loan is not clear.
Further the report of the concerned officer, who filed the utilization certificate speaks about work is not in progress at the time and date of his field visit.
It is also seen from the documents filed that the Complainant had got other crop loans in his name, but not a single documents about repayment has been provided creates questions about the intentions.
From documents it is found met that Rs.1,90,000/-(Rupees one lakh ninety thousand)only has been sanctioned in the month of December-2009 and the filed visit was done on Dt.10/02/2010. Wherein it is claimed that only Rs.78,000/-(Rupees seventy eight thousand)only has been spent and no work was going on. So it appears that there is a communications gap is there about so knowledge about what is there in the report accurred with the complainant or he is pretending ignorance. The loan is sanctioned upon some agreement and under the circumstances no waiver can a claimed for not utilizing the funds released and it can not be accepted that Complainant did not got the 2nd installment of the loan sanctioned and sat silent till 2013 till getting of the demand notice knowing very well about this loan obligations. Neither he further completed the required parameter to claim of the loan the 2nd installment shows that he has no interest to proceed with the project sanctioned.
By demanding a sanctioned disbursed loan amount the Opposite Parties have not committed any error and as per prevailing laws recovery of loan can not be stopped on stayed. (SARFAIESE ACT)
The utilization report submitted by the utilizing officer that is FEO. Show that 2nd installment will be sanctioned and disbursed once the Complainant fulfills the parameters of the project, so even after that time the Complainant had the opportunity to complete the execution to get the 2nd visit by the officer to show completion of work and pray release of 2nd phase money to proceed with the work which was not done rather sat silently waiting for now money disbursed without spending the earlier sanctioned amount which seems in appropriate for any present person.
O R D E R
Under the facts and circumstance discussed above Opposite Parties are exonerated from the charges levelled against them.
Further Opposite Parties are directed to give three months time to the Complainant if he wishes to proceed with the pisciculture project. So he Ist complete the Ist requirement of the agreed terms that is digging of the tanks and give utilization certificate afresh to claim the second installment and proceed further other wise the Opposite Parties are free to proceed with as per agreed terms of the loan.
Complaint dismissed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Smt.Anjali Behera)
M e m b e r(w), I agree,
I/C President. ( Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash )
M e m b e r.
