Date of Filing : 01.05.2023

Date of Disposal : 20.05.2024

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED:20.05.2024

PRESENT

Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: PRI. DIST & SESSIONS JUDGE (R )- I/C PRESIDENT

Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO.855/2023

Canara Bank

Nutan Vidyalaya Branch

Kalaburgi – 585 102

Rep. By its Branch Manager

(By Mr Prashanth T. Pandit, Advocate)                           Appellant                                                

-Versus-

Sri Prajwal Nayak

S/o Vikram Nayak

Aged about 39 years

R/at Plot No.295

GDA Layout

Veerendra Patil Badavane

Sedam Road, Kalburgi-585 105                                 Respondent                                                                                                                    

 -:ORDER:-

Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: I/c PRESIDENT

1.       This is an Appeal filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by OP aggrieved by the Order dated 06.01.2023 passed in Consumer Complaint No.81/2018 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kalaburgi (for short, the District Commission).

2.       The Parties to this Appeal will be referred to as the rank assigned to them by the District Commission.

3.       The Commission examined the grounds of Appeal, impugned order, Appeal papers and heard the learned counsels.

4.       Learned counsel submits that while recording findings on point No.2, the District Commission failed to consider the version statement submitted by OP.  Further submits that in Para 4 of the impugned order, the District Commission though reiterated the portion of version, wherein stated that ‘the complainant has failed to comply the banking regulations in time to convert the OD loan into Term Loan by way of executing the required and necessary documents, the Respondent Bank has calculated the actual rate of interest prevailing under prime-lending rate of the RBI guidelines, hence, there is no difference of calculation of interest of Rs.58,966/- as clarified by the complainant from April 2011 to March 2015’.  However, in Para 11, while recording findings on point No.2, the District Commission has opined that ‘The complainant as claimed Rs.90,538/-, excess interest calculated by OP at the time of arguments, he has filed, his self calculated value added interest as per the PLR, up to date interest calculated for a sum of Rs.2,26,578/-, till 20.12.2022 and this statement of interest calculated was served on OP and the OP not disputed the same. As  per this statement of calculation of interest, as on the date of filing the complaint is Rs.68,697/-,  the complainant calculated interest at the rate as per PLR, hence, we have accepted the said calculation’.  Thus, considering such findings of the DCDRC, in our view is not correct, since the DCDRC being an       adjudicatory Authority, has to examine both statements and decide by appreciating   all the materials, before arriving at a final conclusion, since the amount held by OP Bank is public money and we cannot exercise discretionary power in such matters, since they are guided by RBI.  In such view of the matter, it would be appropriate to remand back this matter to the District Commission to decide the case afresh.  Accordingly, proceed to allow the Appeal and consequently, set aside the impugned Order dated 06.01.2023 passed in Consumer Complaint No.81/2018 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kalburgi with a direction to the District Commission to re-admit the complaint and decide the case  afresh, affording  opportunity to both the parties. It is needless to say as early as possible not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.

5.       All contentions are kept opened.

6.       Amount in Deposit is directed to be transfer to the District Commission for the needful.

7.       Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and  the parties concerned.

 Lady Member                               I/c President                       

*s