State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Saratram Panda, Son Of Late Bansidhar ... vs Branch Manager, Central Bank Of India, ... on 24 July, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA: CUTTACK C.D. APPEAL NO.577 OF 2001 From an order dated 09.08.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jajpur in C.D. Case No.128 of 2000 Saratram Panda, son of late Bansidhar Panda, At. Pairakh, P.O. Brahmanigaon, Via Arei, Dist. Jajapur Appellant -Versus- Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Binjharpur, At/P.O./ P.S. Binjharpur, Dist. Jajpur Respondent For the Appellant : N o n e For the Respondent : Mr. P.K.Mohapatra & Associates P R E S E N T : THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SAMANTARAY, PRESIDENT A N D SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER O R D E R
DATE:-
The 24 July, 2009.
Justice A.K. Samantaray, President.
This C.D. Appeal is of the year 2001 and was preferred by Saratram Panda, who was the complainant before the District Forum, Jajpur in C.D. Case No.128 of 2000 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Central Bank of India, Binjharpur Branch. By majority judgment and order dated 09.08.2001, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint and directed the complainant-guarantor to take shelter in proper court of law for realisation of the amount, which was appropriated by way of set off by the opposite party-Bank towards the loan amount of the principal borrower. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order as above, the complainant preferred appeal before this Commission and this Commission, by order dated 05.04.2004 allowed the same by holding the respondent-opposite party-Bank liable to refund to the appellant the matured amount as on the date of maturity, i.e., 28.04.1998 and interest thereon at the prevailing rate of interest if deposited for more than three years. Apart from that, this Commission also awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to be paid by the respondent-Bank to the appellant-complainant. Against the said order of this Commission, the respondent-Central Bank of India preferred revision petition, which was numbered as 1319 of 2004, before the Honble National Commission. Before the Honble National Commission, contention was raised by the complainant-opposite party that no notice was issued to the complainant before appropriating the fixed deposit amount. It was also pointed out before the Honble National Commission by the learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party that the ledger produced by the Bank revealed that the loanee was regularly paying the instalments and was not declared as a defaulter at any point of time, and for that there was no justifiable ground to appropriate the amount payable to the complainant, who was a guarantor. It was also contended that the officers of the Bank committed some mischief in appropriating the complainants amount, for which neither the complainant had agreed nor was the loanee aware. The Honble National Commission found that these matters were not discussed in the body of the judgment passed by this Commission. Therefore, while allowing the revision in part and setting aside the judgment and order passed by this Commission, the Honble National Commission remitted the matter back to this Commission to decide it afresh after taking into consideration the contentions raised by the parties as well as the documents produced on record.
2. We have heard Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank, who was the opposite party before the learned District Forum. Though Mr. B.B. Patnaik had entered appearance for the appellant-complainant, he did not appear when the matter was called for hearing, nor was any mention made on his behalf seeking adjournment, and since this is an appeal of 2001, we took up the same in the light of the observation made by the Honble National Commission referring to the L.C.R.
3. First of all, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Bank that the complaint itself is barred by limitation as it was filed nearly after four years of the appropriation of the amount of the complainant, which was done on 27.03.1996 and the loan amount of the original loanee Kaustuva Ch. Panda was closed. Appropriation of the amount in the fixed deposit account of the complainant was done with his consent, as has been recorded in the compromise proposal/ recommendation submitted by the Bank. With regard to the contention before the Honble National Commission that the origin al loanee Kaustuva Ch. Panda was making regular payment of instalments, learned counsel took us to the loan ledger, and after perusal of the same we come to notice that the original loanee has regularly defaulted in repayment of the loan amount, for which the amount was increasing every month, and for that the question of proposal for compromise arose and the appellant-Saratram Panda, who is admittedly a relation and co-villager of the original loanee and stood guarantor for the loan, which the original loanee incurred for purchase of a Matador, agreed to the compromise proposal and the same has been recorded by the Bank officials. It has been mentioned in the proposal form that the term loan of Rs.68,000/- was sanctioned for purchase of a Matador van. The vehicle met with an accident and could not be repaired as there was no insurance. The vehicle was in fully damaged condition and the value might be negligible. The borrower had left the place for Calcutta in search of a job. It was very difficult to recover the dues through process of law as the properties under mortgage were in remote rural area. Therefore, compromise proposal was submitted at the instance of the guarantor.
4. It is the admitted fact that this appellant had stood guarantor for the loan incurred by Kaustuva Ch. Panda, the original loanee and he had a fixed deposit account, which had lien in favour of the Bank against the loan account of the original loanee. Before the loan was liquidated, the fixed deposit matured and it was renewed. Once it had lien and the appellant voluntarily stood guarantor for the loan, in our considered view, the lien with the renewed deposit continues. When the vehicle in question, which was purchased by the original loanee incurring a loan of Rs.68,000/-, met with an accident and was badly damaged beyond repair and had no insurance at the time of accident, and the amount of loan went on increasing due to non-payment, the Bank exercised the lien and set off the amount under lien for liquidation of the debt of the original loanee. This has been done in pursuance of the compromise proposal and on set off of Rs.33,835.55, the loan amount of the original loanee Kaustuva Ch. Panda has been closed and the documents, which had been deposited with the Bank relating to the properties mortgaged by the original loanee have been taken back by the guarantor Saratram Panda, who is none but this appellant.
5. From the above materials available on record, we come to find that with the full knowledge of the appellant, who was the complainant before the District Forum, the compromise was effected and with his consent the fixed deposit amount, which was the lien of the Bank against the said original loanee Kaustuva Ch. Panda, was set off by the Bank and the loan account was closed. The contention raised before the Honble National Commission that notice was to be is issued before exercising the lien, in our view, was not at all tenable, because with the consent of the complainant-guarantor all these transactions have taken place. The original loanee is a relation of the complainant, for which the complainant stood as a guarantor for him and kept in lien his own fixed deposit amount in the Bank against the said loan.
6. In the result, therefore, we dismiss this appeal, which is bereft of any merit. However, we make no order as to cost.
.......
(Justice A.K. Samantaray) President ........
(Subash Mahtab) Member SCDRD, Cuttack July ,2009/Nayak