State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager, Bank Of India vs Mr. Sachidananda Mishra on 29 April, 2022
7OCT 20
CNO1
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL cOMMISSION
ORISSA, CUTTACK.
FIRST APPEAL No-577201
IN THE MATTER OF
An appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer
Protection Act-1986 and the rules made there under.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
1- BRANCH MANAGER,
Bank of India, Jeypur Branch,
At/P.o/ P.s- Jeypur, Dist-Koraput
2- ZONAL MANAGER, Bank of India,
Bhubaneswar Zone, Star House, Near Hottel Crown,
Jaydev Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Orissa
(Opp. Party No 1 and 2 before the District Forum respectively)
..APPELLANTS.
-Vrs-
Mr Sachidananda Mishra
S/o Kalisha Chandra Mishra
At. Power House colony, P O/P.S- Jeypur
Dist-Koraput
(Complainant before ihe District Forum)
. RESPONDENT.
F.A.No.599/2011
293012 Heard the learned counsels of the parties.
The brief facts of the case of the complianant is that the complainant availed a loan from the O.Ps for purchase of a vehicle and in the month of March, 2011, he wanted to close his loan account but the O.P No.l asked the complainant to come in the 1" week of April due to burden of year ending works of the bank. The complainant approached the O.P No.1 on 5.4.2011 and the said O.P asked the complainant to deposit Rs.23,900/- towards full and final closure of the loan dues, the complainant deposited the said amount and waited till evening at the bank to get back his documents. It is submitted by complainant that in the evening the O.P No.l asked the complainant to pay a further sum of Rs.3000/- towards getting clearance from Zonal Offrice, thereafter the documents deposited by the complainant shall be released to which the complainant protested. It is further submitted that on 16.4.2011 the complainant with much difficultiy came to know that closure of his loan account is pending due to non-payment of Rs.88/- and the complainant deposited the said amount on that day but the O.P No.l
-2 not returned the documents to the complainant furnished by him. It is also submitted that on 25.4.2011 at about 12.00 noon the complainant again approached the O.P No.1 to know about his loan accounts but the O.P become furious and started abusing the complainant and as such the complaianant issued a notice to O.Ps through his advocate. The O.P No.1 in reply to the said notice stated that the complainant may visit the bank to accept the document. With these and other allegtions he filed this case praying before the Forum below to direct the O.Ps to issue No Due Certificate and other documents for cancellation of hypothecation before the R.T.O and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation to the complainant.
On receipt of notice, the O.P No.l appeared and filed written version denying the allegations made in the complaint petition.
The Opposite parties filed counter admitting the loan accounts of the complainant with them and deposit of documents for availing the loan. It is contended that the complainant closed his loan account on 16.4.2011 and on the same day the O.P requeted the complainant to obtain copy of Form-35 a 3 to give notice of termination of hypothecation in the R.C. Book of the vehicle and soon after receipt of said form on 23.4.2011 the 0.P No.I signed on it and wrote a letter to the LIC for reassigrnmet of LIC policy in the name of the complainant. The O.P No.l also receive requested the complainant to come on 25.4.2011 to documents and duplicate key of the vehicle but instead of coming to the bank he sent a legal notice to which the O.P replied on 29.4.2011 and inspite of reminders the complainant did not turn up to the bank to receive his documents etc. It is also contended that the O.Ps deputed one of their staff members to deliver the documents and duplicate key of the vehicle in person to the complainant but he refused to receive those items.
On receipt of notice, the O.P No.l appeared and filed written version denying the allegations made in the complaint petition.
After hearing the matter, the lemed forum below passed t impugned order directing opposite party No.l to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards cost to the complainant within 30 days from the dte of communiction of the order failing which the awarded amount shall carry intrest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date ofthe order.
4- Challenging the impugned order, the appellant has filed this appeal.
During the course of hearing counsel for appellant submitted that there is no latches on the part of appellant bank and learned fourm below has passed the impugned order without considering the fact that the complainant refused to accept the documents from the peon deputed by bank to hand over the key and documents of vehicle. Counsel of complainant /respondent submitted that no peon was deputed to hand over the documents to the complainant. The legal notice of complainant clearly speaks how the appellant has misbehaved and harrased the complainant. In legal notice, the details of harassment has been narrated by the complainant.
We have gone through the records and the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, the complainant had taken the loan from the bank and repaid the entire loan amount it was thee , duty of the bank to send the documents, Form -35 duly signed by it to the office of R.T.O., Koraput for termination of the hypothecation but the written version and the atlidavit dated 16.8.2011 clearly speaks that the bank ofticialswthet discharging their duty asked the complainant to bring/collect Form-35 from the ottlice 5 of R.T.O.,Koraput, so that bank can send /give notice to RTO, Koraput for termination of hypothecation from the R.C.Book of the vehicle. As the appellant has not dischargted his duty as per the provision of law and harassed the complainant, the complainant suffered from mental tension and harassment. The above action of the appellant amounts to deficiency in service.
In view of such fact, we hold that learned forum below has rightly held deficiency in service on the part of appellant but taking into consideration of materials available on record, we modify the order of learned forum below and direct the appellant to pay Rs.1000/- to the complainant towards the compesation for mental tension and harassment and the said amount be realised from the salary of the person who was dealing with the matter at the relevant time within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which awarded amount shall carry interest @9% p.a till the date of realisation of said amount.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. No cost. DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the from Confonet or Website of this copy of this order be downloaded Commission.
Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this .KMohapatra) Member (S.L.Pattnaik) Member