DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR
C.D. Case No. 03 of 2011
Seshadev Purohit, S/o. Late Madhusudan Purohit, aged about 52 years, Working as employee – District Stastistical S.F.S. Office, At/P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur
………… Complainant
Vrs.
Chief Banch Manager, State Bank of India, Sonepur, Code No.1085, At/P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District - Subarnapur
……… Opp. Party
Advocate for the Complainant …………. Sri S. Dash
Advocate for the O. P. …………. Sri G.S.Panda
Present
1. Sri S.C.Nayak, President
2. Smt. N.Parwin, Lady Member
3. Sri A.Mishra Male Member
Date of Judgement Dt.26.8.2011
J U D G E M E N T
By Sri S.C.Nayak, P.
The complainant has filed this C.D. Case against the Chief Branch Manager S.B.I., Sonepur alleging deficiency of service on his part.
The case of the complainant is that he applied for loan from S.B.I., Sonepur which was allowed in his favour on 7.11.2005 vide loan account No.01593014425. But subsequently the account number has been changed to 11404685199 on 5.8.2007. As per the terms of agreement of the loan the bank was to deduct Rs.1350/- only per month for a period of 60 months. Accordingly banking authority were deducting the same from the salary of the complainant. But when new account number was allotted to the complainant the bank issued notice to the complainant mentioning his outstanding dues as Rs.55,883.29 paise. After getting the notice the complainant became surprised and he prayed before the B.M. Subarnapur on 2.12.2009 to supply him the statement of account. When the banking authority remained silent the complainant sent letter through U.C.P. on 17.12.2009. As on this also the banking authority remained silent on 31.12.2009 the complainant sent an application through U.C.P. to the Chief Manager, S.B.I., Sonepur.
The complainant approached the banking authority several times for the statement of account, but they remained silent. Again on 11.11.2010 the Chief Manager issued notice to the complainant about the outstanding dues. That after this on the request of the complainant his advocate issued notice U/s.80 C.P.C. which was received by the banking authority on 7.1.2010.
-: 2 :-
For the above act of the O.P. the complainant suffered irreparable loss mentally and physically for which he suffered from diseases and incurred expenditure on medicine. So he has claimed a total compensation of Rs.1,31,000/- from the O.P.
The O.P. has filed written version. According to him the complainant is not a consumer. The O.P. has averred that the complainant is a service holder and he has two accounts with the O.P. branch i.e. the saving bank account bearing No.11404604500 and loan account bearing No.11404685199. It is agreed by the complainant that he will repay the loan amount with monthly instalment of Rs.1350/- which should be paid on every month. But as the complainant defaulted in payment of his instalment, demand notice was given to the complainant. The O.P. has further averred that before the core banking system all the transaction of the bank is stored in the bank master and it takes some days to get the printed statement of account. It is also averred that the statement of account was shown to the complainant. But he remained silent. It is also averred that when the salary amount deposited in his saving bank account, before the date of repayment the complainant was withdrawing all the amounts through A.T.M., some times his salary was also not deposited regularly in his saving account for which his loan amount was over due. After giving him sufficient opportunity the O.P. as per the term of the agreement has set hold the saving bank account of the complainant as per the guide line of the Bank. The O.P. has averred that the allegation leveled by the complainant is baseless and he is estopped to challenge the agreed term and conditions of the loan. Accordingly he prayed that the complaint case be dismissed with exemplary cost.
From the pleadings of the parties the questions that falls for consideration by the Forum are :-
i. Is the complainant a consumer ?
ii. Has the O.P. committed any deficiency of service ?
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. The O.P. has averred that the complainant is not a consumer. But we find that banking service also comes within the definition of service as given in the C.P.Act. Further more, since loan is sanctioned to the complainant on payment of interest, the complainant hires the services of the bank for consideration. So the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act.
Now the next question that falls for determination by the forum is regarding deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. During hearing the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that after institution of the complaint, the account of the complainant has been set hold illegally for which he has been harassed mentally and physically. On this the learned counsel for the O.P. replied
-: 3 :-
that the account of the complainant has been set hold as per the terms of the loan agreement since the complainant has defaulted in payment of his loan amount. We have perused the agreement. As per clause 11 of the agreement the bank has set hold the account of the loanee in case of default. So we have not found any deficiency of service on the part of the bank in this regard.
The complainant has alleged that although he has approached the O.P. several times for statement of account, they have turned a deaf year to it. We found that the complainant has approached the O.P. for statement of account on 17.12.2009, 31.12.2009 through letter Under Certificate of Posting, Xerox copy of which has been filed in this case. The O.P. has averred that all the letters of the complainant have been complied and the statement of account was also shown to him. But there is nothing on record to substantiate the stand of the O.P. The learned counsel for the O.P. submitted that before the core banking system all the transaction of the bank is stored in the bank master and it takes some days to get the printed statement of account. But we find that the complainant approached for the statement of account as early as on 17.12.2009. The complainant has filed this C.D. Case on 22.2.2011. Till that date he was not supplied with the statement of account. It is only after the institution of the complaint and on the intervention of the forum, statement of account has been supplied in this case. So there has been deficiency of service by the O.P. on this score.
Now it is to be seen to what relief the complainant is entitled. The complainant has prayed that he should be given Rs.1,31,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment, treatment for disease and cost of litigation. He has not substantiated his claim for such a lump sum amount. In the facts and circumstances of this case a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation for mental agony, harassment etc. and Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation would meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly.
O R D E R
It is hereby ordered as follows :-
The O.P. shall give Rs.4000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt/production of this order. Complaint is partly allowed.
Dated the 26th day of August 2011
Typed to my dictation
I agree I agree. and corrected by me.
Smt. N.Parwin, Sri A.Mishra Sri S.C. Nayak
Lady Member Male Member President
Dt.26.8.2011 Dt.26.8.2011 Dt.26.8.2011
