Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/566/2017

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. through Authorised Signatory Rohitas Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kunj Bihari Agarwal s/o Kalu Ram - Opp.Party(s)

Jai Prkash Sharma

06 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 566 /2017

 

Kotak Mahindra Bank through authorized representative Rohitashv Mishra Off. 1^st floor, Krishna Tower, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme,Jaipur.

Vs.

Kunj Bihari Agarwal s/o Kaluram r/o Plot No. C-116 Hari Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 6.2.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Avinash Kumbhaj counsel for the appellant

None present on behalf of the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

2

 

 

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Jaipur 3^rd dated 17.4.2017 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that as per settlement installments were not paid by the consumer and the bank was authorized to revert back to its original position as regard to account and bank has rightly calculated the dues. The claim should have been dismissed.

 

None appeared on behalf of the respondent. Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

Ex. 9 settlement letter is admitted document between the parties and it has been settled between the bank and the consumer that installment of Rs.50,000/- each should be deposited on or before the given dates.

 

The counsel for the appellant has rightly contended that

 

3

 

installments of Rs.50,000/- on or before 25^th October and 25^th November have not been paid and major amount is paid in December. As Ex. 9 has not been complied with the bank was authorized to revert back to original position and after calculating the amount due and interest claim is raised against the respondent.

 

A bare reading of Ex. 9 goes to show that each installment of Rs.50,000/- was to be paid on or before 28.9.2009 , 25.10.2009, 25.11.2009 and 25.12.2009 and admittedly the respondent has not paid the amount as per settlement. On 29.9.2009 he has paid Rs.50,000/- thereafter on 30.9.2009 he paid Rs. 10,000/-. In October he has paid only Rs. 25,000/- in lieu of Rs. 50,000/- and in November he paid nothing and rest of the amount was paid in December. It is true that he paid the amount of Rs. 2 lakh and more but payment has not been made as agreed in Ex. 9 and it has specifically agreed between the parties that agreement would be considered null and void if for any reason the consumer failed to make the payment within stipulated time and when the consumer has

 

 

4

 

not paid the amount within the stipulated time he could not get the benefit of Ex.9.

 

Hence, in view of the above the appellant cannot be held deficient. The appeal is allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 17.4.2017 is set aside.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm