Punjab

Sangrur

CC/307/2016

Rikhav Dev - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Azadwinder Ashta

27 Sep 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 307                                                                                         

                                                                    Instituted on:   25.02.2016                              

                                                                   Decided on:    27.09.2016

 

Rikhav Dev proprietor Rikhav Dev  Furniture Works, VPO Channao, Tehsil and District Sangrur.    

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     State Bank of Patiala, Branch Kalajhar, Sub Tehsil Bhawanigarh, Tehsil  and District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     State Bank of Patiala, Region-III (P), 2nd Floor, Pragati Bhawan, Urban Estate, Phase-III , Patiala, through its Regional Manager.   

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri Azadwinder Ashta Adv.                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES         :     Shri Sat Paul Sharma Advocate                          

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

     

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Rikhav Dev, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he is having limit  account  number 65157774325 with OP no.1. The OP no.1  told the complainant  that limit of Rs.50,000/-  was passed by the authorities in place of Rs.1,50,000/- as applied by the applicant.  In the year 2015, the complainant got statement of his said limit account from the OP No.1 to check the status of his limit account.  The limit account as per the statement supplied by the OP No.1 limit was mentioned in the statement is Rs.1,00,00,000/-.  Thereafter the applicant received  documents including statement of account  or vouchers with regard to limit  account of the complainant in which  limit amount was mentioned as Rs.1,00,000/-  but the entries  were the same as per previous statement supplied by the OP No.1.  Mostly vouchers were not filled by the complainant only few vouchers were filled by the complainant. The complainant did not understand that who made such fake entries or transfer the money from account of the complainant to other account.  The OP No.1 also failed to disclose the fact that who utilize the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- . The complainant received  application form under Right to Information  Act, where loan applied for is mentioned as Rs.1,50,000/-under term loan for 60 months and EMI is Rs.1150/- per month and interest rate is 13% i.e. 2.50%  above base rate.   Thus, alleging deficiency in service  unfair practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to refund the excess interest amount of Rs.50000/- and to settle the account with the complainant and to give detail regarding the fake transactions ( self made) and the person who made the same.

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OPs, it is stated that the complainant having working capital & term loan account in the State Bank of Patiala, Branch Kalajhar under the name  and style of M/s Rikhavdev Furniture Works.  The credit facilities/ loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- i.e. amount of Rs.1,00,000/-  working Capital and Rs.50,000/-  as term loan was sanctioned to the complainant on 28.12.2012 after  signing  the bank performs by the complainant.  The complainant is enjoying credit facilities / loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/-  i.e. amount of Rs.1,00,000/-  working Capital and Rs.50,000/- as term loan.  As per the entry dated 31.12.2012 of the statement of account the limit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- . The OP No.1  sanctioned limit amount of Rs.1,00,000.00/- one Lac not Rs.1,00,00,000/-  on crore  to the complainant.  As per entry dated 31.12.2012 amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred  to SB account of Rikhavdev account and on 21.02.2013 a sum of Rs.42000/- was transferred to CC account of M/s Rikhav Dev Furniture Works account. Whenever the complainant approached to the OP No.1 for getting the information of his accounts the OP no.1 supplied the information as demanded by the complainant.  The complainant is not entitled to any relief  whatsoever and is not entitled  to claim & recover anything  from the OPs in the light of what is stated above. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs .    

3.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-18. On the other hand, OPs  have tendered documents Ex.OPs-1 to Ex.OPs-3 and closed evidence.

4.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the main point of controversy in the present complaint  is with regard to the excess interest charges  on account of loan of the complainant by the Ops. The complainant has alleged that  the OPs have mentioned the amount of limit as Rs.1,00,00,000/- one crore as per document Ex.C-2 whereas the Ops have placed on record  the statement of account of the complainant which is Ex.OP-2. After perusal documents of  both the parties we find that though at the place of sanctioned limit it has been mentioned as Rs.1,00,00,000/- one crore but there is no transaction of this amount in the whole statement of account produced by both the parties.  The version of the complainant  that the amount of limit has been mentioned as one crore is contradicted by his other document Ex.C-15 in which the limit  is mentioned as Rs.1,00,000/-.

5.             On perusal of the documents placed on record we find that  loan was sanctioned  in the year 2012 as the first entry in the statement of account Ex.C-2 is dated 28.12.2012. So, we find that if the complainant had any  grievance  then he should have come to the Forum in time but as the Ops have not taken the plea of the limit  in the present case so the case is being decided on merits.

6.             The complainant has led very voluminous evidence but from the perusal of the documents tendered by the complainant  we do not find  any document in support of his version as neither the amount in excess of his limit has been debited  nor there are any undue transaction as has been alleged by the complainant.

7.             The file reveals that the complainant was sanctioned a total loan of Rs.1,50,000/-  and out of this amount  Rs.1,00,000/- was sanctioned as working Capital limit whereas Rs.50,000/- was sanctioned  as term loan amount  and it cannot be said that the complainant was not sanctioned as total loan of Rs.1,50,000/-  as alleged by the complainant.

7.             So, from the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is therefore dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                                             

                        Announced

                        September 27, 2016

 

 

 

          ( Sarita Garg)  ( K.C.Sharma)           (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                     Member         Member                            President

 

 

 

BBS/-