Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member :
Heard appellant/original complainant. The appellant has taken loan of `2,00,000/- from the respondent, Bank of Baroda. In favour of the appellant/complainant, an amount of housing loan of `1,95,000/- was released against the sanctioned amount of `2,00,000/-. According to the appellant, the Bank had recovered an amount of `2,15,018/- towards principal amount and `70,719/- towards interest and, thus, according to him, `20,018/- towards principal amount and `33,000/- towards the interest were recovered in excess from him. He therefore, filed a consumer complaint. The consumer complaint bearing No. 60/2008, Shri Suresh N. Khatri V/s The Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda which stand dismissed by an order dated 05.05.2011 by South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai (the Forum in short) and thus, feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal filed by the complainant.
In the instant case, the dispute is in respect of recovery of loan amount in excess and therefore, it is in reality a dispute of rendering an accounts. It has nothing to do with the hiring of service of the Bank to obtain loan. For this reasons alone, dismissal of consumer complaint cannot be faulted with.
Apart from this, if at all, for the sake of argument, even if we assume that the element of service exists in the instant case, the alleged deficiency, admittedly, would be from Bank of Baroda for not properly maintaining accounts and making recovery in excess towards the principle and interest than what is actually due. The Bank being a corporate institution itself, is a separate and distinct jurisdic person within the meaning of section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Its official i.e. the Assistant General Manager is also a separate and distinct jurisdic person than the Bank itself and he is not a service provider. Since consumer complaint is not filed against the Bank, ultimate dismissal of the complaint cannot be held as improper/illegal.
For the reasons stated above, we find that appeal is devoid of any substance. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :
O R D E R
Appeal is not admitted and stands disposed off, accordingly. No order as to costs.
Pronounced dated 18th August 2011.
