District Consumer Forum, Ganjam, Berhmpur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/04/160
M/s Konark Industries represented by Prop. Smt. P.Indira, aged about 37 yearsAt/po: Lochapada, Ps: B.Sadar, Dist: Ganjam.
………..Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. The Branch Manager, Orissa State Financial Corporation, Engineering School Road,At/po: Berehampur- 760 010. Dist: Ganjam.
2. The Regional Manager, Orissa State Financial Corporation, Engineering School Road, At/po: Berhampur- 760 010. Dist: Ganjam.
3. The General Manager (Recovery), Orissa State Financial Corporation, Industrial Estate, Madhupatna, At/po: Cuttack- 750 013. Dist: Cuttack.
4.The Managing Director, Orissa State Flinancial Corporation, O.M.P. Square, At/po: Cuttack-750003. Dist: Cuttack.
………..Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Mr.Harish Chandra Nayak
2. Smt. Shanti Panigrahi
3. Mr. N Tuna Sahu
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Mr.V.Prasanna Kumar Patro, Advocate
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Mr. L.N.Pati, Advocate
ORDER
Deficiency in service against the O.Ps is the grievance of the complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he was availed loan from the O.P.No.1 for manufacturing of Gudakhu and spices under name and style of M/s Konark Industries situated at Lochapada Road, Berhampur. As per sanction letter the complainant has complied all requirements and also deposited the title deeds for equitable mortgage. The complainant established the Industries towards her earn for family food and shelter. The complainant cleared this loan including principal and interest on 30.6.2000, 20.1.2000, 5.7.2003 and 3.6.2001 respectively. After cleared of the loan the complainant requested for issue of No Dues Certificate (N.D. C.) and returns of the title deed and original other documents. But the O.Ps have not taken any action for the issue of N.D.C. and return of the original documents. The O.Ps illegally demanded Rs.2,42,270.87 paisa for issue of N.D.C. and returning documents. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to issue {“No Dues Certificate “), Rs.90,000/-towards compensation and litigation costs of Rs.10000/- to the complainant in the best interest of justice. 3. On receipt of notice issued by this Forum, the O.Ps filed version through his Advocate. It is contended that the allegations and averments made by the complainant are not all true and the same be proved. A sum of Rs.2,75,000/- Term loan and a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- working capital Term loan were sanctioned on 23.3.1991, cyclone working capital Term loan Rs.1,60,000/- and Addl. Cyclone loan Rs.1,20,000/-weree sanctioned on dt.7.1.2000 to the complainant for running and establishment of the unit. Out of the above loan a sum of Rs.6,24,500/- was disbursed to the complainant. After availing the loan the complainant did not pay the dues of the corporation in time as per the loan agreement executed by her and became a willful defaulter. After loan reconciliation it was found a sum of Rs.2,42,270.87 was outstanding to be repaid as on 17.11.2003 by the complainant. It is well settled position of law that where the complainant had only borrowed amount from the Corporation his relationship is only that of a borrower and debtor and out of such relationship a consumer disputes can not arise. Hence prayed to dismiss the case. 4. On the date of hearing we heard argument. The Advocate for complainant filed “No instruction memo”. This Forum by relying upon a citation passed by National Commission New Delhi in M/S Shankar Tube Wells versus The B.M. State Bank of India, 1997(2) C.P.R. 3 such as: “Non release of documents by the Bank on repayment of the loan which were deposited as security for the loan gives rise to a Civil disputes and the complainant can not be said to be a consumer”. In the light of the above decision of law we dismissed the case. In the result we dismissed the complaint with a direction to the complainant to file such complaint before any other Forum for vindication of his grievance and he may avail the benefit U/S 14 of the Limitation Act in the best interest of justice The order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 22nd Decembe2009. Typed to my dictation and corrected by me.
Deficiency in service against the O.Ps is the grievance of the complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he was availed loan from the O.P.No.1 for manufacturing of Gudakhu and spices under name and style of M/s Konark Industries situated at Lochapada Road, Berhampur. As per sanction letter the complainant has complied all requirements and also deposited the title deeds for equitable mortgage. The complainant established the Industries towards her earn for family food and shelter. The complainant cleared this loan including principal and interest on 30.6.2000, 20.1.2000, 5.7.2003 and 3.6.2001 respectively. After cleared of the loan the complainant requested for issue of No Dues Certificate (N.D. C.) and returns of the title deed and original other documents. But the O.Ps have not taken any action for the issue of N.D.C. and return of the original documents. The O.Ps illegally demanded Rs.2,42,270.87 paisa for issue of N.D.C. and returning documents. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to issue {“No Dues Certificate “), Rs.90,000/-towards compensation and litigation costs of Rs.10000/- to the complainant in the best interest of justice. 3. On receipt of notice issued by this Forum, the O.Ps filed version through his Advocate. It is contended that the allegations and averments made by the complainant are not all true and the same be proved. A sum of Rs.2,75,000/- Term loan and a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- working capital Term loan were sanctioned on 23.3.1991, cyclone working capital Term loan Rs.1,60,000/- and Addl. Cyclone loan Rs.1,20,000/-weree sanctioned on dt.7.1.2000 to the complainant for running and establishment of the unit. Out of the above loan a sum of Rs.6,24,500/- was disbursed to the complainant. After availing the loan the complainant did not pay the dues of the corporation in time as per the loan agreement executed by her and became a willful defaulter. After loan reconciliation it was found a sum of Rs.2,42,270.87 was outstanding to be repaid as on 17.11.2003 by the complainant. It is well settled position of law that where the complainant had only borrowed amount from the Corporation his relationship is only that of a borrower and debtor and out of such relationship a consumer disputes can not arise. Hence prayed to dismiss the case. 4. On the date of hearing we heard argument. The Advocate for complainant filed “No instruction memo”. This Forum by relying upon a citation passed by National Commission New Delhi in M/S Shankar Tube Wells versus The B.M. State Bank of India, 1997(2) C.P.R. 3 such as: “Non release of documents by the Bank on repayment of the loan which were deposited as security for the loan gives rise to a Civil disputes and the complainant can not be said to be a consumer”. In the light of the above decision of law we dismissed the case. In the result we dismissed the complaint with a direction to the complainant to file such complaint before any other Forum for vindication of his grievance and he may avail the benefit U/S 14 of the Limitation Act in the best interest of justice The order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 22nd Decembe2009. Typed to my dictation and corrected by me.
Mr.Harish Chandra Nayak
………………….
Smt. Shanti Panigrahi
………………….
Mr. N Tuna Sahu