Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/221/2021

Shyam Lal Jat S/o Khambha Ram Jat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Central Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Prem Prkash Bunkar

08 Sep 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR

 

FIRST APPEAL NO:221/2021

 

Shyamlal Jat s/o Sh.Khamma Ram Jat r/o village Sunda ki Dhani, Post Takhalsar Tehsil Fatehpur Shekhawati Distt. Alwar.

Vs.

Central Bank of India Branch Ramgarh Shekhawati Tehsil Fatehpur Shekhawati Distt. Sikar through Br.Manager

 

Date of Order 8.9.2021

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Banwari Lal Sharma-President

Hon'ble Mrs. Shobha Singh -Member

 

Mr. R.A.Verma & Ms.Sangeeta learned counsel for the appellant

Mr.Aditya Mitruka learned counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA, PRESIDENT ):

2

 

Present appeal is preferred by the appellant complainant assailing the impugned judgment dated 9.2.2021 passed by the learned DCF Sikar in Complaint Case No.312/2017 (Shyamlal Vs. Central Bank of India ) whereby the learned DCF dismissed the complaint of complainant.

 

Brief facts relevant for this appeal are that appellant complainant filed a complaint u/s 12 of the C.P.Act,1986 before the learned DCF Sikar on 14.9.2017 stating therein that appellant complainant took loan from respondent in the year 1999 against loan account no. ATL 161/19. Upto the year 2009 he deposited the loan amount and there was no dues against the complainant. All of sudden appellant complainant received notice from non-applicant of dated 12.7.2017 to the effect that a sum of Rs. 2,23,692/- is lying due against him for which he was called on 21.7.2017 for settlement in the camp. The complainant contacted the concerned bank officers who after repeated requests lastly on 31.7.2017 informed that there is no dues against him. Lastly it was prayed that due to illegal notice of non-applicant, the complainant suffered mental and physical agony therefore, a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs be awarded as compensation and Rs. 21,000/- be also awarded as litigation

3

expenses.

 

In reply non-applicant admitted that notice was issued wrongly due to human error therefore, complaint may be dismissed.

 

After hearing both the parties the learned DCF dismissed the complaint considering that issuance of notice was a human error against which this appeal is filed by the appellant complainant.

 

Mr.R.A.Verma learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant complainant submitted that after depositing the entire loan amount in the year 2009 the notice was issued in the year 2017 without going through the ledger. Not only this in notice it is clearly stated that a sum of Rs. 2,23,692/- is lying due against the complainant which resulted in sudden shock to the complainant. He submits that due to it complainant has to attend the camp after leaving his daily work and also suffered with travelling expenses. He submits that at the time of camp the error was not cured. It was cured after ten days and till ten days complainant suffered mental and physical agony and repeatedly visited the bank and suffered with travelling

4

expenses. Without considering all these facts the learned DCF wrongly dismissed the complaint therefore, the appeal may be allowed and compensation may be awarded to the complainant.

 

Per contra Mr.Aditya Mitruka learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and submitted that notice was wrongly issued due to human error and there is no evidence on record that appellant complainant suffered any loss due to this notice. He submits that appeal may be dismissed.

 

We have considered the submissions made at Bar.

 

It is an admitted position that loan amount was cleared in the year 2009 and there was no dues against the appellant complainant still in the year 2017 notice was issued by the respondent for dues of Rs. 2,23,692/- which is clearly deficiency of service and due to this notice appellant complainant was forced to leave his daily work and go to the settlement camp and to the officers of the bank upto 31.7.2017. Therefore, it cannot be said that he did not suffer any loss due to wrong action of respondent. It may be the

5

human error but due to this error he suffered mental and physical agony and also suffered with travelling expenses which should have been considered by the District Commission.

 

Without considering these facts the learned District Commission wrongly dismissed the complaint therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable which is hereby quashed and set aside and the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and loss of mental and physical is quantified as Rs. 5000/- and litigation expenses also quantified as Rs. 5,000/-. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to pay a total sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant complainant within two months from today failing which it will bear interest @ 9% p.a. from today. It is made clear that respondent is free to recover the aforesaid amount from the defaulting official of the bank.

 

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

 

(Shobha Singh) (Banwari Lal Sharma)

Member President

 

nm