Date of filing:- 05/05/2008

Date of Order :- 27/03/2009

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM(COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Dispute Case No. 35 of 2008

Mukunda Dev Naik, aged about 33(thirty three) years, son of Basu Naik R/o. Vill-Tulandi, P.o. Tulandi, under P.S. Barpali, Dist. Bargarh.

- V e r s u s -

1) Aditya Pradhan aged about 35(thirty five) years, son of not known working as D.B.D, Manager at State Bank of India, Barpali Branch, Ps. Barpali, Dist. Bargarh.

2) State Bank of India, Barpali Branch, Barpali under P.s. Barpali, Dist. Bargarh being represented by its Manager, At/Po. Barpali, Ps. Barpali, Dist. Bargarh.

3) State of Orissa represented through District Magistrate & Collector, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant:- Sri S.P. Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.1(one) :- Sri Hadu Dash, Advocate with other Advocates.

Opposite Party No.2(two)

For the Opposite Party No.3(three):- Sri A.N. Mahapatra, Advocate.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Sri Gouri Shankar Pradhan ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.

Sri Binod Kumar Pati ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

Miss Bhagyalaxmi Dora ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

Dt. 27/03/2009 -: J U D G E M E N T :-

Presented by Sri G.S. Pradhan, President .

The case pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act.1986 and its brief fact is as follows:-

The Complainant being an agriculturist, is a holder of Kisan Card No. 6220180201270000718 duly issued by the Opposite Parties vide account No. 11280484668. The Complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 53,044/-(Rupees fifty three thousand forty four)only in his account on Dt. 19/12/2007 and on the same date he withdrawn Rs. 6,000/-(Rupees six thousand)only from the same account. After such transaction the Complainant found a sum of Rs. 581.64/-(Rupees five hundred eighty one and sixty four paise)only as balance of that account maintained by the Opposite Parties. For such reason the Complainant sought for quarry through several letters which are not responded by the Opposite Parties.

The Complainant alleges that the Opposite Parties has intentionally, deliberately and malafidely caused the account of the Complainant to be freezed for which the Complainant could not be able to withdraw his deposited amount, thereby he suffered a great loss of profit in the process of cultivation.

According to Complainant freezing of his account with out any reasonable and sufficient cause by the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and claim compensation as per the Complaint petition which the Opposite Parties are liable to pay to the Complainant.

The Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) submitted its written version through their Advocate where in it has been stated that, the Opposite Parties have caused no any deficiency in service towards the Complainant. The deposit of Rs. 53,044/-(Rupees fifty three thousand forty four)only on Dt. 19/12/2007 through a cheque bearing No.044985 and withdrawal of Rs. 6,000/-(Rupees six thousand)only by the Complainant on the same date is not disputed by the Opposite Parties.

The Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) contends that, the Complainant has availed a crop loan vide Account No. 11280484668 for Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only. Besides the crop loan he has also availed two another loan bearing loan account No. 11280519636 for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/-(Rupees one lac ten thousand)only Dt. 17/03/2004 and another loan bearing loan account No. 11280483733 for Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lac)only Dt. 30/11/2004 which are irregular.

Further the mother of the Complainant Smt. Susila Naik has also availed two another loan from the State Bank of India, A.D.B, vide loan Account No. 10455677990 for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only for agricultural purpose and another for a sum of Rs.4,91,000/-(Rupees four lac ninety one thousand)only vide his loan account No. 1045570281 for the purpose of a Agro-Service Centre, which are irregular.

In spite of repeated letters and approach by the Opposite Parties requesting the Complainant to repay the outstanding loan amounts, the Complainant did not listen to the Opposite Parties and did not take any care to cleared up the out standing dues and made complaint falsely against the State Bank of India, Barpali Branch and its officers before its higher authorities including Collector, Sub-Collector, Project Director, D.R.D.A., Deputy Collector, Grievance cell, Bargarh and to such other Higher Officials.

The Opposite Party No.2(two), Branch Manager, Barpali Branch in its letters Dt. 21/09/2007, Dt. 10/12/2007, Dt. 19/12/2007, Dt. 08/02/2008 and dated 17/09/2007 has requested the Complainant to clear up the outstanding loan amount but the Complainant did not respond it. Since the Complainant is a chronic defaulter, the Opposite Party No.2(two) Bank has got right to hold lien on the deposited amount of the defaulting borrower as per Banking law in the case of a chronic defaulters. So there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and prays for dismissal of the case against Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two).

A bunch of copy of documents has been filed by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) in support of their case, which are attached with the case record.

The Opposite Party No.3(three) in its version denies to have cause any deficiency in service towards the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.3(three) in no way related to the transaction of the State Bank of India nor it has control over the Bank. The Complainant has no any grievance against the Opposite Party No.3(three). Hence prays for dismissal of the case against with special cost. As no any claim is made against the Opposite Party No.3(three) and the Opposite Party No.3(three) in no way related with the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two), the case against the Opposite Party No.3(three) is dismissed.

Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the Parties and we have gone through the case in detail and perused the copy of documents filed by the Parties in respective of their cases. It is no disputed that the Complainant is a Kisan Credit Card holder bearing No. 6220180201270000718 issued by the Opposite Parties and deposited a sum of Rs. 53,044/-(Rupees fifty three thousand forty four)only through a account payee cheque No. 044955 on Dt. 19/12/20007 in his K.K.C. Loan account No. 11280484668 and withdrawal of Rs. 6,000/-(Rupees six thousand)only on the same date. Further it is also not disputed that the Complainant Makunda Dev Naik has availed a crop loan for Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only on Dt.12/02/2004 and another two loan vide loan account No. 11280519636 for Rs. 1,10,000/-(Rupees one lakh ten thousand)only on Dt. 17/03/2004 for purchase of agricultural implements and another vide loan account No. 11280483733 for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only on Dt. 30/11/2004 and the mother of the Complainant has also availed another two loan from the State Bank of India, A.D.B., Bargarh Branch.

The only grievance that propelled the Complainant to knock the door of the Forum is that, whether the Opposite Parties Bank has got right to hold lien the account of a defaulting Kisan Credit Card account holder. The Complainant contends that holding lien the account of the Complainant being a K.C.C. holder without any reasonable cause thereby deprived the Complainant to with draw money from the said account amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

The copy of documents filed by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) shows that inspite of repeated letter, requesting, the Complainant to clear of the outstanding loan, the Complainant did not respond and became a chronic defaulter. Copy of letter Dt. 19/12/2007 issued by the Opposite Party Bank to the Complainant read as follows:- “With reference to our Earlier letter No. BR-34/15 Dt. 10/12/2007 your have failed to regularize the ATL Account No. 11280519636 till date and not called on us for a detailed discussion. So we have hold lien on the K.C.C. Account No. 11280484668 today and you will not be allowed to draw till the K.C.C. Account in closed”. So the Opposite Party Bank has informed the Complainant much before to hold lien of the K.C.C. Account of the Complainant. As per the Banking Law and Practice, the Opposite Parties has rightly hold lien of the K.C.C. Account of the Complainant being a chronic defaulter.

No any materials is placed before the Forum to prove that, the Bank has got no power to hold lien of a account of a defaulting Kisan Credit Card Holder.

In view of above discussion the Bank has committed no deficiency in service by holding lien of the K.C.C. Account of the Complainant Mukunda Dev Naik. Hence the complaint is dismissed.

Complaint dismissed.

No cost.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

Sd/-

I agree, I agree, (Sri Gouri Shankar Pradhan)

P r e s i d e n t.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Sri Binod Kumar Pati) (Miss Bhagyalaxmi Dora)

Member. Member.