1. This appeal is by the Regional Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Mumbai and the Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Cuttack, who have assailed the judgment and order of the District Forum, Kendrapara dated 24.07.2007 passed in C.C. No.16 of 2007. Respondent-Khetrabasi Nayak as complainant had filed the aforementioned consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the present appellants as well as Sukanta Kumar Satpathy (respondent no.2). The prayer made in the complaint was for a direction to the opposite parties to release the balance loan amount of Rs.25,700/- in favour of the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.2,40,600/-.
2. The case of the complainant in brief, as mentioned in the complaint petition, is that he approached the ICICI Bank- opposite parties 2 and 3, i.e., the present appellants, through opposite party no.1, who is an Agent of the said Bank to avail loan under farmers personal scheme in order to repair his tractor, which was very much necessary for cultivation. Opposite party no.1 asked the complainant to submit all the required documents. Accordingly, the complainant submitted the documents on 23.09.2006. Opposite party no.1, after verifying the documents received from the complainant, submitted the same to opposite parties 2 and 3 for sanction of the loan. The complainant went to opposite party no.1 on 24.10.2006 who paid him the first instalment of Rs.15,000/- out of the sanctioned loan of Rs.40,700/- and assured to pay the balance amount on 03.11.2006. The complainant, after receipt of the said instalment, handed over his tractor to the mechanic for necessary repair. It is his further case that on 03.11.2006 he went to the office of opposite party no.1 to receive the balance loan amount, but the said opposite party did not release the same. On the other hand, opposite party no.1 and his fellow men assaulted the complainant and confined him in the office of opposite party no.1. On getting information, villagers came and rescued the complainant. It is also stated that on 14.11.2006 the complainant came to know that opposite party no.1 had withdrawn the entire sanctioned amount of Rs.40,700/-, but paid him only Rs.15,000/-. He reported the matter to opposite parties 2 and 3 (present appellants). Basing on the representation of the complainant, the employees of opposite party no.2 came to the village of the complainant on 15.11.2006 for enquiry. They enquired into the matter and left the village after giving assurance to the complainant to release the balance amount. It is also stated that on 18.11.2006 opposite party no.1 being aggrieved by the enquiry conducted at the instance of the complainant went to the house of the complainant and finding the complainant absent threatened his wife and snatched a gold chain from her neck. The complainant thereafter several times approached opposite parties 2 and 3-Bank to get his balance loan amount from opposite party no.1, but could not succeed and hence filed the complaint.
3. All the opposite parties entered appearance. Opposite party no.1 filed separate written version and stated that he is the proprietor of Biswanath Agro Chemicals and Company and also an Agent of the ICICI Bank having its local office at Tinimuhani, Kendrapara. On 15.06.2005, being approached by the complainant for availing loan in order to repair his tractor, he instructed the complainant to bring the tractor, which was repaired in the workshop and, as per the instruction of the complainant, he paid Rs.15,000/- towards the cost of repair of the tractor. It is his further case that the complainant approached him to avail agricultural loan and Rs.15,000/- was paid by him towards repair of the tractor to be adjusted out of the agricultural loan. Opposite party no.1 has stated that the complainant was directed to submit necessary documents and accordingly the complainant submitted necessary papers along with loan application, which were sent to opposite parties 2 and 3-Banik for sanction of the loan. Since on verification it was found that the complainant had submitted some forged rent receipts and that he had availed loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the Urban Cooperative Bank, Chandikhol Branch in the name of his wife and was also a defaulter; in the matter of repayment of the loan amount, his loan application was rejected on 18.11.2006. Thus, opposite party no.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint as it is based on false and frivolous facts.
Opposite parties 2 and 3-ICICI Bank in their written version stated that the Bank disbursed loan of Rs.40,700/- in favour of the complainant for purchase of a tractor. The complainant, after availing the said loan, purchased a tractor bearing registration number OR 050-0657. He executed loan-cum-hypothecation agreement in favour of the Bank. As per the terms and condition of the hypothecation agreement, the complainant was to repay the loan in instalments, but he failed to do so. The complaint has been challenged on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Forum at Kendrapara to entertain the same and finally it is prayed in the written version for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The learned District Forum, after hearing both the parties, allowed the complaint on contest against opposite parties 2 and 3, i.e., the present appellants, with cost of Rs.500/- and directed them to disburse the loan of Rs.25,700/- in favour of the complainant out of the sanctioned loan of Rs.40,700/- and also to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
5. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. R. Roy, learned counsel appeared and argued for the appellants-ICICI Bank, but none appeared for the respondents, i.e., the complainant and opposite party no.1 before the District Forum, in spite of notice.
6. We have received the LCR and have gone through the complaint petition and the written versions of the opposite parties. When it is the case of the appellants-opposite parties 2 and 3 that the loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.40,700/- and the same was disbursed in favour of the complainant-respondent to be repaid in instalments as per the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement, if any action has been taken by the appellants for nonpayment of the instalments, no deficiency can be attributed to them. Opposite party no.1, against whom the complainant has made serious allegations in the complaint petition, is not represented before us in this appeal. But, no document comes forth from the side of the complainant to substantiate those allegations. There is also no material before; us to rebut the assertions of opposite parties 2 and 3. Absence of the complainant-respondent after receipt of notice of this Commission speaks a volume about the truthfulness of the factual aspects. On a very reading of the impugned judgment, we are of the view that there was no material before the District Forum to come to the conclusion; that opposite parties 2 and 3 were deficient in providing banking service to the complainant and there was no justification for directing them to disburse Rs.25,700/- to the complainant and make payment of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- as litigation expenses.
7. For the foregoing discussions, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2007 passed by the District Forum, Kendrapara in C.C. No.16 of 2007 and direct dismissal of the said consumer complaint.
Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith.