DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 25th day of September, 2018
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
C.D Case No. 83 of 2016
Sri Rabinarayan Ojha
S/o Late Surendra Nath Ojha
Vill/Po: Dolasahi
Ps: Tihidi
Dist: Bhadrak- 756127
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. The Branch Manager
UCO Bank, Dolasahi Branch
Vill/Po: Dolasahi
Ps: Tihidi
Dist: Bhadrak- 756127
2. The Zonal Manager
UCO Bank, Balasore
Zonal Office, Balasore
Po/Dist: Balasore
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Mr. Ajay Kumar Swain, Advocate
Counsel For the O.Ps: Mr. Chittaranjan Nath, Advocate
Date of hearing: 16.08.2017
Date of order: 25.09.2018
BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
This dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service.
The complainant, after being retired from defense service, kept a portion of retirement benefits in the name his wife and children in shape of fixed deposit with OP No. 1 Bank. After getting retired, in order to manage and maintain his family, complainant started a retail business at Dolasahi. In order to augment the shortfall in working capital requirement, the complainant requested the OP No. 1 for credit support in providing cash credit accommodation on pledge of fixed deposits which was agreed upon by the OP No. 1. Consequent, upon finalization of marriage date of complainant’s daughter, the cash credit accommodation was sanctioned on 30.07.2002 by the OP No. 1 observing all formalities which was availed by the complainant at the later stage. After a pretty long gap, when the complainant moved to branch of the OP for transaction in the cash credit account, he observed the bank has charged @ 11% interest instead of charging @ 2% more than the interest admissible on pledged fixed deposits as was agreed between the complainant and OP before sanction of cash credit. Being surprised, when the complainant asked the OP No. 1 about charging of higher rate of interest, over and above the agreed rate of interest, OP bluntly refused as to have agreed on the request of the complainant and expressed the rate of interest was charged on C.C accommodation is the accurate rate of interest as was prevailing at the time of granting/sanctioning cash credit. Being aggrieved enough, complainant requested the OP for closer of pledged FD accounts and to credit the amount to the C.C account. On dt. 08.05.2017, OP No. 1 issued a letter requesting the complainant to come to the office of the OP for a discussion and when the complainant arrived at the branch, OP No. 1 without resuming any discussion, placed some papers before the complainant and asked to sign the papers which was refused by the complainant. Subsequently the complainant came to know that his KCC loan account maintained with the bank has been closed by virtue of his signature taken for renewal of KCC loan account and the FDs maintained with the OP No. 1 branch pledged against C.C account have been closed at their sweet will. Being disappointed by the arrogant attitude and irresponsiveness of OP No. 1, the complainant filed this dispute praying for an order directing the O.Ps to refund excess interest realized together with cost and compensation for mental agony and harassment.
O.Ps resisted the claim and contested the case. Before submission of written version, the O.Ps have filed a petition for dismissal of the case as the case has been filed beyond limitation period. In submitting the written version OP has claimed that the dispute suffers from infirmity on the points of cause of action mis-joinder of unnecessary party and limitation. O.Ps have also denied all the allegation made in the complaint only other than the facts having recorded prove. In narrating the true facts behind the dispute, OP stated that the complainant requested the OP No. 1 on dt. 19.07.2002 for a cash credit accommodation of Rs 2,00,000/- for rice and paddy processing business as against which he offered some fixed deposit accounts kept in the branch in the name of his wife and children. The OP being satisfied with the complainant, sanctioned a C.C limit of Rs 2,00,000/- in favour of the complainant and made over a copy of the sanction letter on 30.07.2002 to the complainant, with proper acknowledgement, which bears all terms and conditions. Simultaneously the complainant pledged four numbers of fixed deposits kept with the branch in the name of complainant himself, his wife and minor daughter and son having face value of Rs 50,000/- each in order to secure the aforementioned cash credit account. According to the terms of the sanction order the interest on the cash credit to be charged @ 11.5% P.A and in the event of the said C.C account becomes out of order, penal interest would be charged which was within the knowledge of the complainant and the claim so raised by the complainant is false frivolous and having no merit at all and finally OP has prayed the Forum for dismissal of the case for the aforesaid reasons.
We have gone through the complaint, written version, perused materials on record and focused on the points as discussed below to draw a conclusion according to the merit of the case.
1. Admittedly the complainant is a borrower as well as a depositor of OP bank having 4 numbers of fixed deposits with OP No. 1 branch in the name of his wife and minor children’s and has availed a cash credit accommodation vide C.C A/c No- 9. The operation of C.C was allowed within the limit of Rs 2,00,000/- which was sanctioned on pledge of fixed deposits bearing No- 12200300000038, 00037, 00036 and 00035. Other than the above facts all other allegations in the complaint are disputed between both the parties.
2. The counsel for O.Ps raised the question of maintainability on the ground of limitation, cause of action and mis-joinder of unnecessary party. In explaining the above objections, O.Ps pleaded that the C.C accommodation was given during the year 2002 on pledge of four numbers of fixed deposit accounts which has become out of order since 2004 and the bank has, time and again, reminded the complainant to clear up the loan but he did not turn up to close the account which was treated as N.P.A, causing loss to the financial assets of the OP bank. It is worth mentioning that the complainant did not raise any objection on the point of excess rate of interest charged on the C.C account and the complainant could have disputed the same in the appropriate Court within the time limit as provided in the CP Act. But the complainant has filed this case after lapse of more than 13 years which is bad in law and therefore the present case is liable to be dismissed. On the other hand the complainant pleaded in stating that he has, time and again, requested the OP No. 1 to reduce the rate of interest charging @ 2% more over and above the rate of interest allowed on the fixed deposits which was not responded by the O.Ps with an ulterior to put the complainant in trouble and problems.
Heard both the parties and perused materials on record and observed that the O.Ps have adduced all relevant evidence in support of their pleadings but on the contrary complainant failed to adduced any evidence to substantiate his pleadings. Hence it is concluded that objection raised by the OP on the point of limitation holds good and also sustainable.
3. The O.Ps have objected that there is no cause of action to file this case in consumer Forum for which the case is liable to be dismissed. On the contrary the complainant has raised that he has submitted a letter to the O.Ps on 30.04.2007 requesting the lessening of interest on cash credit from 11% to 8% as was agreed between them at the time of sanctioning the C.C limit. But on the other hand O.Ps pleaded in stating that the cash credit limit of Rs 2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs only) was sanctioned on 30.07.2002 and communicated a copy of the sanction letter to the complainant on proper acknowledgement wherein all the terms and conditions were stipulated specifically the rate of interest was mentioned as @ 11.5%. Therefore it is made crystal clear that everything was within the knowledge of the complainant. If the date of issue of letter by the complainant shall be treated as date of cause of action, this dispute is falling under barred by limitation as the complainant has not filed the dispute within two years from 30.04.2007 that is the date of issue of requesting letter. Furthermore if the last date of transaction would be taken into consideration as the date of cause of action, still then this dispute is falling under barred by limitation. Hence the objection raised by the O.Ps on the point of cause of action is sustainable.
The statement of accounts furnished by the O.Ps in course of hearing reveals that the complainant has ceased to operate the C.C account since 2006 which clearly proves that after availing the loan the complainant has grossly neglected and has taken undue advantage from the bank and has litigated the matter in this Forum for his personal gain and interest which is not just & proper in the eyes of law. The very intention of the complainant seems to be unfair and has been cherishing ulterior motive to deceive the bank and not to repay the loan as demanded by the OP bank.
In view of the above analysis and taking all the materials on record into consideration, this Forum arrives at the conclusion that the dispute does not have any merit and liable to be dismissed. Hence it is ordered;
- ORDER
The complaint be and the same is dismissed and in the circumstances without cost.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 25th September, 2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
