Orissa

Jajapur

CC/22/2018

Kushadhwaja Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary,Jajpur Sub-Divisional House Building Co-Operative Society. - Opp.Party(s)

Pratap Kumar Ray,Rajib Kumar Mohanty

30 Jun 2021

ORDER

IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION , JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:   1.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, I/C President,

                                                                          2.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                                                                 

                                          Dated the 30^th day of  June,2021                                                   

                                                          C.C.Case No. 22  of 2018

Kushadhwaja Nayak, S/O Late Rama ch.Nayak   

Vill/. Kuakhia   /P.O.  Rasulpur

P.S.Kuakhia   , Dt.Jajpur 

  

                                                                                                                  ……....Complainant .                                                                                                      

                                                  (Versus)

1. The Secretary,Jajpur Sub-post Divisional House Building Co-operative

Society, At. Market chhak, P.O/P.S/Dist.Jajpur.

2. The Managing Director,Odish Co-operative Housing Corporation

At-Unit-3,Janapath, Bhubaneswar.

                                                                                                                           ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                                             

For the Complainant:                               Sri P.K.Ray, R.Ku.Mohanty ,  Advocates  .

For the Opp.Parties : No1                               Sri A.Ku.Dash ,Advocate     

 

                                                                                                     Date of order:  30 .06. 2021.

SHRI PITABAS MOHANTY, PRESIDING   MEMBER   .

 

            The petitioner  has filed the present dispute  alleging deficiency in service against the o.ps .

            The facts  as per complain  petition  as stated in the complaint petition  shortly are  that  the petitioner availed  a house  building  loan  of Rs 50,000/ from the O.Ps in the month of July-1996 . Out of sanction amount of Rs. 50,000/  a sum of Rs. 10,000 /- ( 1^st installment ) was released by op.1 in favour  of the petitioner for construction  of house  . After receipt of the 1^st installment the petitioner invested the same in  digging the foundation and collecting materials etc.  Thereafter the petitioner run after the  o.p1      for more than 100 times for release of balance amount but all these efforts became in vain .

            That for the negligence and deficiency of  service the O.Ps ,  the petitioner sustained monetary loss in way of borrowing hand loans from the neighbors  with  the higher rate of interest for completion of  the building . After completion of  the building the petitioner  also started  running after the O.Ps to release the balance amount of Rs. 40,000/- but it is also in vain. Thereafter a sum of Rs. 23,200/-  has already  been paid by the petitioner to the O.Ps  towards  the  loan amount of Rs10,000/-  ( as 1^st  installment ) That during 2017 the petitioner astonished  he has received a letter from O>p.no.1  that a sum of Rs73,473/-  is pending against  him till 03/2/2017 .After receipt of the said notice the petitioner met  the  O.P  in their office in different occasion and ventilated them  as to why  a huge amount is outstanding  although  he has already paid  Rs23,200/ . That the O.P.no.1 disclosed that the notice wrongly has been  issued               Thereafter on 16.2.18 the petitioner  called by O.p.no.1  to meet them in the office who told that Rs.44,000/-will be  paid by the petitioner then the loan amount  will be closed . Accordingly finding no other alternative   the petitioner  knocked the door of this commission with the prayer necessary order may kindly be passed directing the O>Ps  to pay  a sum of Rs. One lakh towards compensation to the petitioner as well as  close the loan account of the petitioner .

            After notices the O.Ps have  appeared through their learned advocate  and subsequently filed their written version  stating that  the case is liable to be dismissed  due to non- joinder   mis- joinder of  necessary party. The case is liable  to be dismissed  for limitation ground .

Admittedly the O.P  is a registered organization under Odisha Co-operative societies Act 1962 and affiliated to Odisha Co-operative Housing Corporation Bhubaneswar . This O.Ps  being guided by the Rules of finance as implemented by the statue and normally carry out the business of providing house building loan to its members within the sub-divisional limit of jajpur.  Admittedly the petitioner is a banafide member of this O.P’s  society and he was sanctioned a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards house building loan. After observing official formalities a sum of Rs.10,000/- was released in favour of him towards 1^st installment of loan. As per agreement it was agreed to complete up to plinth label of the building as per plan submitted along with his loan proposal within a period of 6 months.  It is the matter of great surprise the petitioner has not completed the same within the stipulated time. Instead of several instruction and repeated visit of the official supervisor the petitioner paid no attention to complete the work except digging of foundation and stacking of materials. Till completion of the stipulated period of 6 months the petitioner has not submitted any report regarding completion of the scheduled work as per agreement and rules of finance. The work was not completed within due time the sanction of 2^nd installment of loan was not possible on the part of this O.P  as per rules of finance and as a fact there is no way deficit of service by the O.p in any manner as per settled position of law . As per guide line the applicant was issued with notice for repayment of the loan amount as sanctioned i.e Rs.10,000/- .Admittedly the applicant has paid a total sum of Rs.23,200/- towards loan installment. Admittedly the O.P has issued demand notice amounting to Rs.73,473/- ( due as on 03.02.17 towards principal and accrued interest) as per calculation of loan ledger. Hence the case is not maintainable before this commission as per settled position of law.

We heard the argument from the learned advocate  for both the sides. After  perusal of the record and documents in details  it is undisputed fact that the  petitioner availed a loan  from O.p.no1 for construction of a house.

It is also undisputed fact that the O.Ps released Rs.10,000/- as  1^st installment  for constriction of a building in favour of the petitioner . But the O.Ps   taken the stand in their written version that as the work is not completed within due time the sanction of 2^nd installment of loan was not possible on the part of the O.P  as per rules of the finance  and  as a fact there is no way of deficit of service of the O.Ps  in any manner as per settled position law . (Moharastra State Financial Corporation Vrs. Sanjaya Sankar Mamarde III 2010-CPJ-33(SC) .On the other hand the petitioner claimed that the O.ps did not released the 2^nd installments inspite of repeated visit to the office of the O.Ps.But we did not found any scrap of paper in the record that the stand / claimed taken by the O.Ps as well as petitioner.

            The O.P  also admitted  that the petitioner  already repayment Rs. 23,200/- against the loan amount of Rs. 10,000/- .  On 3.2.17 the O.P has  issued a demand notice to the petitioner for repayment of  Rs.73,473/-    towards principal  and  accrued interest of the balance loan amount .

Accordinlgy the point of limitation does not arise as raised by the O.Ps.  

            After considering the above observation it is our  considered  view that the O.Ps are  empowered to charge DPC against the defaulted amount but such DPC can not be morethan 9%  interest per annum as per observation  of guide  line of the Hon’ble  Orissa High court and supreme court reported  in WP (C) no.17720/2008, 2001-AIR-3095-SC,  wherein the  Hon’ble Supreme court and High court are in the view that the O.P  is not entitled to charge DPC more than   9% interest  per annum on the defaulted amount.

 

Hence this order

            In the result the dispute is allowed against the O.P .The  O.Ps  are directed to recalculate the DPC at the rate of 9% per annum  on the defaulted amount and the recalculation statement is served on the petitioner by R.P within 30 days after receipt of the order. Thereafter the petitioner  will pay the balance amount (if any) to the O.Ps   as per time fixed by the  O.Ps , failing which the petitioner can take steps as per law.  No cost.

 

        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th  day of  June,2021. under my hand and seal of the Commission .