DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                        C.C. NO. 36 OF 2013

Present:  Sri Rabindranath Mishra        - President.

                 Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik – Member.

                 Sri Chakadola Mallick            - Member.

Sekh Idrish

S/O: Late S.K. Juman

Near Peon Pada U.P School

PO/PS: Phulbani Dist: kandhmal                               ……………..  Complainant.

                  Versus.

1. The Chief Manager

S.B.I Phulbani Branch, Phulbani

PO/PS: Phulbani, Dist: Kandhamal.

2. The Chief General Manager

S.B.I, Bhubaneswar

PO: PS: Bhubaneswar Dist: Khurda                     ……………… Opposite Parties.

For the Complainant: Sri M.R.Mohanty Advocate and his Associates.

For the OPP. Parties: Sri S.K Mohapatra and H.Ch, Maharana, Advocates.

Date of Order: 30-12-2014

O R D E R

                                    The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is the guarantor of the loan sanctioned in favor of his son vide Account No. 30232015975 of the O.P Bank as education loan in the year 2007. The total sanctioned loan amount was Rs.2,65,500/- out of which Rs.2,13,500/- was withdrawn in 4 installments. Thereafter the son of the Complainant has deposited Rs. 2,17,860/- against the said loan and willing to deposit the balance amount after deduction of subsidy amount.

                                   On 26-11-2010 the Complainant has received a letter from the O.P No.1 wherein it is stated that the son of the Complainant comes under the scheme and liable to receive the subsidy amount. Then the required documents were filed by him but no steps were taken by O.P Bank to release the subsidy in favor of the son of the Complainant. As per the scheme the Complainant is able to receive the subsidy amount from 01-04-2009. Though the Complainant has approached the Opposite Parties through several letters and through pleader notice but no fruitful results has been received from the Opposite Parties. Due to non release of the subsidy amount the Complainant and his son sustained financial loss and mental agony which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

                                                                                                          -2-

Hence, this complaint is filed by the Complainant for a direction to place the outstanding loan account correctly after deducting the subsidy and prayed to award compensation of Rs. 1,00000/- along with cost of litigation in favor of the Complainant.

                                    The case of the Opposite Parties as per their version is that Rs. 2,13,55/-  has been disbursed in favor of the son of the Complainant in 4 installments out of sanctioned amount of Rs.2,65,500/- . It is a fact that the Complainant has deposited Rs. 2, 17,860/- against the said loan amount. It is also true that the bank intimated the Complainant that his son is entitled to receive the required subsidy amount in interests on compliance of certain documents. As the Complainant failed to submit the Income certificate for which the matter could not referred to the Head Office for its approval. The Complainant has submitted the Income certificate granted by Tahasildar, Phulbani vide RMC No. 2250/2007 dated 11.08.2007 on 06-02-2014. Then the said proposal was sent to the head office through Regional Manager for approval and the same is pending for proper decision. As there is no intention to harass the Complainant at any point of time, the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

                                  Both parties are not interested to adduce any evidence through affidavits. However we have heard the learned counsels appearing for both the parties. We have gone through the complaint petition, the version filed by the Opposite Parties and documents filed by both parties in support of their case. It is admitted by the Opposite Parties that the son of the Complainant is entitled to get the subsidy amount under the scheme of the Government. It is stated by the Opposite Parties in their version that the proposal is pending in the Head Office for proper decision. In the mean time more than one year has all ready been passed but the O.P Bank has not taken any decision in the matter. The Complainant is willing to clear up the loan amount after deducting the subsidy amount. So, there is no other controversy between the parties regarding the subject matter of the case. .

                                    In the above circumstances the complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed in part. The Opposite parties are directed to take necessary steps to release the required subsidy amount in favor of the son of the Complainant by intimating the correct up-to-date statement of account to the Complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order. We are not awarding any compensation in favor of the Complainant in the said situation.

                                    With the above direction the C.C is disposed of. Supply free copies of this order to both the parties.

                                          MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT