STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ODISHA, CUTTACK

217 FIRST APPEAT NO. OF 2016 (From an order dated 29.6.2015passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jagatsinghpur in C.C. No.61 of

2013)

Ananta Biswal, aged about 30 years, Son of Prahallad Biswal, At Village Katakula, Po - Paradeep, Ps - Paradeep Lock, Dist - Jagatsinghpur ... Appellant Vrs.

L. Manager, Canara Bank, Paradeep, At - OSL Tower, Badapaida, Paradeep, Po/Ps - ParadeQp, Dist - Jagatsinghpur :

2. Divisional [Vlanager, Canara Bank, At - lndradhanu Market, CRP Square, Bhubaneswar, Dist - Khurda

3-,1ffianaging Director, Canara Bank, Regd. Office at Manipal - 575104 Respondents For the appellant: M/s N.K.Dash & Associates For the respondents :M/s B.N.Udgata & Associates fu-, PRESENT:

THE HON'BLE SHRI D.K.MOHAPATRA, OFFICIATTNG PRESIDENT AND SRI HEMANTA K.MOHANW, MEMBER fflt r.i DATED .l'1 AUGUST, 2024 ORDER SHRI D.K.MOHAPATRA. OFFICIATING PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jagatsinghpur in C.C. No. 61 of 20L3.

2.

The case of the appellant/complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant applied for a housing loan before Opp.Party No.1 with all required documents and after due verification of the documents and physical verification of the project site, opp.parties sanctioned Rs.25,00,000/- vide loan account No.80727740000971 for the project and disbursed on on Rs.6,00,000/- 02.12.201L, Rs.5,00,00O/- 29.L2.2011, Rs.1,50,000/- on L6.7.2012 in toto disbursed Rs. L2,50,000/- and it was duly utilised by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant submitted the utilisation certificate before Opp.Party No. L and requested for release of the rest of the sanctioned loan amount for completion of the project in time but Opp.Party No. L deferred the *tr^

I I matter and finally on 24.3.20L3 refused to disburse the rest sanctioned loan amount. Thereafter, complainant asked opp.party No.1 to provide the statement of loan account, loan agreement, loan application and other connected papers but Opp.Party No.1 on 25.3.20L3 only supplied the account statement and refused to provide any other documents but pressed for repayment of the loan instalment. on verification of the account statement, complaint found that the entry in the loan account do not tally with the entries made in the pass-book. Finding no other way, the complainant filed the Consumer Complaint with prayer to direct the Opp.Parties to disburse the rest of the sanctioned loan amount in order to complete the project, to provide the copy of the loan agreement, copy of the loan application and to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.70,000/- towards loss sustained by him.

3.

The Opp.Parties No.1 and 2 filed joint written version before the District commission stating that the complaint is not maintainable before the District Commission. lt is further subrrtitted that after receiving the loan application, the respondents Bank made necessary inspection of the project of the appellant/complainant and after due consideration on 15.11,.201,1" sanctioned Rs.25,00,000/- in favour of the complainant towards loan. The respondent No.L Bank also released ^{Rs.5,00,000/- on} on O2.L2.2Ott, Rs.5,00,000/- 29.t2.201L, Rs.L,50,0OOl- ^on 16.7.20L2 in toto disbursed Rs.12,50,0001- in ^favour of, [not utilised properly. So, the Bank stopped disbursement] appellant/complainant. The respondentr Bank inspected ^{the site of} the complainantand found that the loan amount disbursed ^{was of} further loan amount. On verification ^of the ^{lT return of the} complainant, it was found that no lT return was ^{filed by the} complainant before the lncome Tax Officer, Ward ^{No.L, Paradeep.} The lT return filed by the complainant was a fake one. ^{As suchthe} respondent Bank has not released the rest of the loan ^{amount in} favour of the appellant/ complainant.

4. The learned District Commission after hearing ^{both the}

parties dism