ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS.  PRESIDENT

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties (herein referred to as OPs) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in respect of the deficiency of service in not accounting properly and not debiting the amount paid by him towards the loan accounts and to direct the OP No.1 to transfer and adjust the excess loan amount paid to the account No.114010300002530 with other loan account No.114010600009683 and to direct Op to inform the total amount due in all the three loan accounts after deducting the installment paid by him to the extent of Rs.20,55,000/- and to issue no due certificate in respect of all the said three loan accounts and to release the original document in respect of the property given as security and for Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation from OP No.1 for causing him mental agony, monetary loss, to the misdeeds of the OP  and such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that, the complainant obtained three loans under Loan Account No.114010300002530 for an amount of Rs.3,06,000/-, Account NO.114010600009683 for an amount of Rs.12,40,000/- and Account No.114010600009690 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- under Kissan Credit Facility for establishing agricultural development to the extent of Rs.18,46,000/- which was sanctioned through sanction letter No.CABCB/ARH/KCC-32/2009-10 dated:27.06.2009 and obtained the said loan by offering collateral security by mortgaging his property bearing Sy.No.232 and 233 of Kondavadi Village, Madugiri Taluk, Tumkur District measuring 3 acres 20 guntas each and property bearing No.279 of Budigere Village, Channarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk. Complainant is an innocent agriculturist and as per the directions of the OP he started repaying the amount to the bank. He has paid Rs.2,97,500/- in respect of loan account No.114010600009690 from 29.01.2010 to 05.11.2012 Rs.14,57,500/- in respect of Account No.114010300002530 from 17.06.2010 to 21.05.2014 and Rs.3,00,000/- in respect of A/c No.114010600009683 starting from 04.12.2010 to 21.05.2014.  He has already paid Rs.20,55,000/- towards the said loan of Rs.18,46,000/-. The loan is under Kissan Credit facility. Whenever he went to pay the amount to the bank, one of the officer of the Op i.e. (chashier) always used to write the challen for payment and deposit the installment to loan account No. 114010300002530. Under the said loan account number, the loan sanctioned and drawn was Rs.3,06,000/-. Whereas amount of Rs.14,57,500/- has been credited to the said account. 

3.     The complainant approached OP bank to rectify the said mistake and to adjust the amount paid to the other account and to give correct amount in respect of the amount due to the accounts, so that, he can pay the balance of amount.  Although he brought the said fact to the notice of the OP and the mistake committed by the official, the same was not corrected by adjusting the excess amount paid to the said account to the other accounts.  He came to know after obtaining the statement from the OP bank that without his consent OP has transferred certain amount from his account to some other account. He was shocked and surprised by the act of OPs. When enquired and sought for clarification, OPs did not give any proper clarification for the same. He wrote a letter to the OPs mentioning in detail the mistakes done by OPs and to set it right. 

4.     He was called by OPs several time to discuss the issue. Inspite of it, the same was not solved. He is ready and willing to pay the balance of amount of the loan if any which is legal.  Prior to that, OPs to rectify the mistake committed by it and to give the clarification regarding the misdeeds and to solve the issues earliest. He had to issue a legal notice on 05.10.2015 through RPAD which was duly served on OPs and inspite of it, OPs did not reply the same nor complied with his demands. The act of OP amounts to deficiency in service, negligence which has caused him mental harassment and agony and he had to spend lot of money in travelling from his place to the OP in Bangalore to get the matter resolved. Inspite of it, Op unnecessarily delayed in solving the problem which has caused him physical and mental stress for which he is to be compensated suitably and hence the complaint.

5.     OP No.1 is the branch office at Indiranagar and OP.No.2 is the branch office at Shanthinagar, Bangalore.  After service of notice OP.No.1 and 2 appeared before the commission through their advocate and filed the version.

6.     In the version it is contended that, the complaint filed is not maintainable either in law or on facts, it is vexatious, groundless and liable to be dismissed in limine.  They have further contended that and denied that though the complainant has raised grievance the bank failed to comply with the request. The complaint filed is hopelessly barred by law of limitation as there is delay of more than two years from the date of transaction. No explanation for condoning the delay has been made.  Complainant has to explain each days delay in filing the complaint.

7.     The borrower has to repay the loan strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The forum has no jurisdiction for taking accounts and deciding what amount due to the parties and the same is the job of regular court of competent jurisdiction. The present complaint filed is an abuse of process of law and same is not maintainable.  The loan matter do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.  There is no cause of action for the complaint and the complainant has failed to make out deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the injustice and the fraud caused to him by the OPs. 

8.     It is further contended that, the complainant approached OP bank for the loan and assured to abide by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. He was sanctioned a sum of Rs.3,06,000/- under the overdraft facility scheme, a sum of Rs.12,40,000/-, and Rs.3,00,000/- under the terms loan facility.  As per the terms and conditions of the overdraft facility, the complainant was entitle to utilize the facility by paying interest per annum towards the same. He had to pay the interest on the overdraft drawn by him and all amount shown is outstanding from time to time, at the foot of the monthly account on the 30^th day of each calendar month. The complainant in addition to has to maintain quarterly average balance in the account and in the event of failure or inability to maintain such balance, had to pay charges as specified by OP. The terms loan is five years and complainant to repay in five yearly installments.

9.     Complainant has to pay Rs.5,03,065/- towards OD facility account which included principal and interest after the tenure of the facility and complainant had to pay Rs.20,15,000/- towards the terms loan of Rs.12,40,000/- which includes the principal and interest after tenure of the facility and to Rs.4,55,960/- towards term loan account of Rs.3,00,000/- which included principal and interest. The above amount were required to be paid if the complainant adhere to the repayment schedule. In this case, the complainant has paid Rs.20,55,000/- against the loan amount of Rs.18,46,000/- and further claims that the same is not adjusted and appropriated towards the proper was account which allegation is it false. 

10.   Firstly the credit facility sanctioned was to be paid along with interest, if the facilities were paid as per the agreed repayment schedule he would have paid Rs.29,74,025/-.  He has paid only Rs.20,55,000/- as per the receipts received by the bank. The bank has not received of payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on 04.12.2010 as contended by the complainant.  Since the complainant is ready to pay the balance of outstanding of the credit facilities, and bank is ready to get the matter settled in respect of the three loans and after the payment they are ready to issue no due certificate in respect of the said account.  In order to escape from the liability for payment of the dues, even though there is no deficiency in service on their part the complainant has filed this false case.  By denying each and every allegations made against it in the complaint OP prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint.

11.   In order to prove the case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

12.   Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 & 2:     In the Negative

                                For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1 & 2:-

13.   Upon perusing the entire documents, version and the complaint, it becomes clear that the complainant borrowed loan from the OP as contended in the complaint. It is also not in dispute that he made an application for loan, obtained the loanm and paid the amount which is also admitted by the OP.  OP disputes the receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of the payment made by the complainant and according to it, it is for some other account. On the request of the complainant only, the said amount deposited in A/c No. 114010600009683 has been transferred to OD account No. 114010300002530.  OP has filed memo of calculation wherein in respect of first loan account No, 114010600009683 against the withdrawal amount Rs.12.40,000/- a sum of Rs.5,77,244/- has been paid and remaining Rs.19,13,663/- is due out of the said loan account.  In respect of 2^nd loan with No.114010600009690 the withdrawal amount of Rs.9,00,000/- and total amount of Rs.3,25,000/- and the outstanding was Rs.1,57,052/-. In respect of the 3^rd loan bearing No.114010300002530 the sanction loan of Rs.3,06,000/- and the amount paid was Rs.17,20,000/-  out of which a sum of Rs.49,000/- transferred to the account of one Thammanna, Rs.1,82,500/- transferred to the account of Manohara, Rs.27,500/- transferred to loan account No.114010600009690 Rs.40,900/-, Rs.2,63,000/- Rs.70,000/- transferred to loan account No.114010600009683 and Rs.1,99,000/- was taken back by pay order/DD by the complainant and Rs.5,50,000/- transferred as per the request to GPM Consultant services and totally the complainant has not at all paid the entire amount and he is due the amount as mentioned above.

14.   Against this memo of calculation, though several opportunity was given to the complainant, did not file his memo of calculation. According to him, out of the total amount Rs.18,46,000/- he had already paid Rs.20,55,000/- and hence there is no amount due from him. Whereas according to OP whatever the amount that the complainant has deposited has been adjusted to the loan account and withdrawn amount as mentioned in the account extract filed by it for his personal reasons after depositing the amount to the said loan account which was s OD account. According to OP, they ought to have received Rs.29,74,025/- from the complainant after five years from the date of disbursing the loan amount.  Complainant has not shown any documents for having paid the said amount. Complainant has agreed to pay interest at 9% to 14.75%  as and when the rate of interest was changed. 

15.   In view of the same, no evidence is placed by the complainant to show that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in adjusting the loan amount paid by him to his account. Hence we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE NEGATIVE and in the result complainant is not entitle any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint and we answer POINT NO.2 ALSO IN THE NEGATIVE and passed the following:

ORDER

1.  The complaint is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
2.  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this day the 19^th day of March 2021)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Doc.No.1: Copy of the Deed of simple mortgage

Doc.No.2: Copy of the receipts

Doc.No.3: Copy of the Bank statements

Doc.No.4: Copy of the complaint

Doc.No.5: Copy of the notice issue by the District Legal service.

Doc.No.6: Copy of the legal notice.

Doc.No.7: Postal receipts

Doc.No.8: Postal acknowledgment.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri Balveer Kapoor, Manager Legal of OP.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

-Nil-

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT