Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/970/2012

Jaigurudev Swayum Sahayata smooh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, State Bank of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

SK Dhanda

21 Mar 2016

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                               Complaint No…970  of 2012.

                                                                                               Date of institution: 11.09.2012

                                                                                               Date of decision: 21.03.2016

Jaigurudev Swayum Sahayata Smooh through its President Shri Sat Pal son of Shri Shankar Lal resident of Village Pheruwala, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                 …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. The Manager State Bank of Patiala, Branch Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Shri Chaman Lal Cashier, State Bank of Patiala, Branch Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.    

                                                                                                                                                    …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  None for complainant.  

               Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for respondents.      

 

ORDER

1                      Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs ) be directed to compensate the complainant on account of lapse and negligence on the part of OPs and further to credit the amount of Rs. 17000/- paid by the complainant in his account and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.   

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant got a dairy loan of Rs. 3,60,000/- from the branch of OP No.1 and the same was disbursed to the complainant on 31.05.2010 vide account No. 65084620025 which was to be repaid by the complainant in installments. There was a subsidy of Rs. 1,00,000/- on this loan amount which was to be deposited in the account of the complainant but the OPs failed to deposit the same in the account of the complainant rather deposited the same in the FDR. So, the complainant suffered a loss of interest on account of difference in the interest charged on the loan amount and paid on the amount of FDR. Further it has been mentioned that an amount of Rs. 7000/- was paid by the complainant to the OPs through OP No.2 and further an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid on 04.07.2011 to OP No.1 but this amount i.e. amount of Rs. 17000/- was not deposited in the account of the complainant, so the OPs have also embezzled the amount of Rs.17000/- paid by the complainant which constitute a criminal breach of trust, harassment and mental agony. The OPs were requested so many times to do the needful but all in vain. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no deficiency in service, not come to the Forum with clean hands and on merit it has been mentioned that true facfts are that as per the Government Scheme, the subsidy was having lock in period of 3 years and hence the said amount of subsidy was kept in the shape of FDR for the said period. However, the complainant has not adhered the banking discipline and did not pay the amount of loan regularly and as such finding no other alternative, the answering OP was forced to credit the subsidy deposited in the shape of FDR in the loan account of the complainant just to save the account from becoming the NPA and to regularize the same. Further the complainant has not deposited Rs 7000/- in his account as alleged in the complaint, however, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid on 4.8.2011 not on 4.7.2011 as alleged in the complaint. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

4.                     Complainant failed to lead any evidence despite so many opportunities including last opportunity as well as with cost of Rs. 100/-. Even the complainant not filed any documents with the complaint at the time of filing the complaint. Hence, the evidence of the complainant was closed by court order dated 22.12.2015.

5.                     OPs also failed to adduce any evidence, hence their evidence was also closed by court order today. .

6.                     We have heard the counsel for the OPs and have gone through the file carefully.

7.                     After going through the contents of the complaint, the only plea of the complainant is that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as subsidy had not been deposited in his account rather it was deposited in the FDR and further an amount of Rs. 17000/- had also not been deposited in the account of the complainant. So, due to this lapse and negligence on the part of OPs, the complainant had to suffer difference in interest gained on account of the FDR and interest paid by the complainant on loan account but the version of the complainant is not tenable as the complainant has totally failed to file any account statement or any other documents from which the version of the complainant can be proved. Further, the version of the complainant that he had deposited Rs. 7000/- through OP No.2 is also not tenable as no documentary evidence in the shape of counterfoil or any receipt has been produced by the complainant. So far as Rs. 10,000/- allegedly deposited on 4.7.2011 by the complainant is concerned, from the reply of the OPs it is clear that the said amount was not deposited on 4.7.2011 rather it was deposited on 4.8.2011 and in the absence of any cogent/documentary evidence, this Forum is not convinced that complainant had actually deposited the amount on 4.7.2011 or 4.8.2011.

8.                     Further, the amount of subsidy of Rs. 1,00,000/- was deposited in the shape of FDR as per Government Scheme which was later on deposited in the loan account of the complainant. Hence, in the absence of any cogent evidence, we are of the considered view that complainant has totally failed to prove his case or any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  

9.                     Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 21.03.2016.

 

 

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (S.C.SHARMA )          

                                                MEMBER