OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAGATSINGHPUR
PRESENT:- SRI S.N.MISHRA,PRESIDENT.
A N D
SRI B.C. SWAIN, MEMBERS.
MRS. M.M.RATH, MEMBERS.
Consumer Complaint No.155 of 2008
Date of Filing: -24.12.2009
Date of Judgment: -29.06.09
Kailash Chandra Kathua
s/o-Dhruba charan Kathua
Jyoti Ice cream
At-Panisalia
Po/Dist-Jagatsinghpur
…………………….complainant
Versus
1. Branch Manager
The Urban co-operative Bank Ltd,
Jagatsinghpur
At-Durgabazar
Po/Dist-Jagatsinghpur
2. Chief Executive
The urban co-operative bank ltd,
Cuttack
Tinikonia bagicha
Cuttack
…………………….Opp.party
For complainant :- Sri S.K.Mohanty , Advocate
For O.P.No.1 & 2 :- Sri P.K.Mohanty, Advocate
In short the case of the complaint is that he has availed a term loan worth Rs.5 lakhs dt. 24.01.03 vide A/c No.SBL-2312 from o.p.no.1 to run an Ice cream factory. He has repaid Rs.2,87,145/- and could not pay rest of loan due to price hike of disel and petrol for which the o.p.no.1 bank has seized his Ambasador car (OR-05-k-0115) and put it to auction for Rs.1,20,000/- to get the sum be realized towards recovery of loan. Besides such payments the complainant is also paying Rs.6,000/- per month towards liquidation of loan but the o.ps. are illegally demanding Rs.3,45,021/- and threatening its collection by use of force hence this complaint.
In short the case of the o.ps. is that this proceeding is not maintainable in law and facts being barred by law of limitation and hit under principles of waiver and acquiescence and estoppels and based on no evidence on record besides , hit U/s.68 and 121 of OCS Act 1962. Admitting complainant’s loan it is submitted that the assets mortgaged in relation to loan are voluntarily surrendered for liquidation of loan as complainant failed to make repayment on account of his domestic problems. It is further submitted that a sum of Rs.2,73,719/- as on 31.03.09 besides Rs.15,173/- remained unpaid as loan outstanding against complainant’s loan account as such o.p.bank being custodian of public money can not sit silent to take recourse for realization of the same, as such , no deficiency in service ever been caused to complainant by answering o.p. so as to be ameable within meaning of this Act.
Under such admitted pleadings of both the parties it can not but be said that complainant as a loanee with o.p.bank has not hired it’s services for consideration as such not coming within meaning of this Act. The submission of the o.ps. that this proceeding is hit U/s.68 and 121 of OCS Act 1962 is not acceptable as this special Act has got authority to scrutinize deficiency in service which has been hired for consideration. To make out a case U/s.2(1)(g) & (o) read with 2 (1) ( r ) of the Act against o.ps. bank the sole reliance of complainant rests on some payment slips which is not adequate on the contrary the o.p. bank seems to have placed all relevant evidence to support their respective rebuttal please , out of which it is revealed that the complainant under took to repay Rs.16,000/- before 10th of every month since inception of availing loan of Rs.5 lakhs but found to be chronic defaulter. So also complainant and his wife both have furnished deed of guarantee in presence of witnesses to liquidate the loan in time but found failed to keep their commitment in all respect. Out of joint affidavit furnished before o.p.bank by complainant and his wife it is revealed that the Ambasador car, along with some of KVPS are also pledged by both of them to avail the loan. Out of softener slip of one uttara Khatua W/o. complainant dtd.21.04.07 it is revealed that she has surrendered the car to O.P. for realization of loan of dtd. 24.01.03 but it has not been seized by o.p. bank as alleged. It is further revealed that vide letter dtd. 06.06.07 the o.p.bank has asked said Uttara Khatua to provide necessary documents and papers relating to said car for fair disposal. Therefore it can not be said that the car has been sold. So also it is not known whether the complainant submitted the required papers as sought for. A sum of Rs.2,73,719/- besides Rs.15,173/- (para-11 of written version page-2) as is remaining outstanding against loan of complainant that must be repaid to the o.p.bank in order to get the mortgaged properties be released. Under such premises, the action taken by O.P. Bank to recover the loan which is a public money can not be held to be either capricious, or, without any authority but in terms of agreement available on record, as such the ingredients U/s.2(1) (g) & ( o ) read with 2(1) ( r ) of the Act are not attracted against o.p.bank . it is up to complainant to pursue the matter amicably with o.p.bank to settle the dispute, hence this complaint gets no merit for consideration.
ORDER
In the result this complaint is dismissed on contest against opposite parties without cost.
Pronounced in the open forum on 29th day of June,2009.
Smt.M.M.Rath B.C.Swain S.N.Mishra
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Tags: Urban co-operative Bank