Date of Filing : 27.09.2014
Date of Disposal : 28.06.2021
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JUNE-2021
PRESENT
Mr. KRISHNAMURTHY.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO.1244 to 1246 of 2014
The Manager
Union Bank of India
Sameer Towers,
CTS 5919, 5920/23,24,25A,
Desai Circle,
Bijapur Road,
… Appellant in all these appeals
(By Sri/Smt.K.B.Monesh Kumar, Advocate in all these appeals)
- Smt.Neelavva
W/o Prakash Ramgond
Aged 38 years,
Occ:House wife,
..Respondent in Appeal No.1244/2014
- Sri.Prakash
S/o Ramappa Ramgond
Aged 45 years,
- Sri.Prakash
S/o Ramappa Ramgond
Aged 45 years,
- Sri.Adiveppa Ramappa Ramagond
Aged 45 years
- Smt.Danavva Adiveppa Ramagond
Aged 45 years
All these Respondents
R/at Mareguddi,
Jamkhandi Taluk,
Jamkhandi-587301,
Bagalkot District.
- Union Bank of India
Central Office
Union Bank Bhavan
No.239, Vidhan Bhavan
Marg, Nariman Point,
-
- Respondent in all these appeals
COMMON ORDER IN APPEAL NO.1244/2014
Mr. KRISHNAMURTHY.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. These are the appeals filed u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by OP.1/Union Bank of India/Appellant herein aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.08.2014 passed by Bagalkot District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in C.C.No.24, 25, & 26/2014. (For short District Commission).
2. The brief facts for the purpose of deciding these appeals would be: Complainants are customers of OP bank. The Complainant Smt.Neelavva in CC.No.24/2014 deposited Rs.10 lakhs for a period of 6 months on 03.03.2012, wherein the OP.1 agreed to pay interest at 8.75% p.a. on the date of maturity value of Rs.10,43,750/- on 03.09.2012. As on 03.09.2012, when she had requested for transfer of the matured amount to her SB account, it was turned down, since adjusted this amount to her loan account and the residue amount was credited, since she had requested loan of Rs.23 lakhs for setting SSI unit in the name of her family members and to that effect OP bank sanctioned the loan of Rs.3 lakhs.
3. The Complainant in CC.No.25/2014 Sri.Prakash is also the customer of OP bank deposited Rs.2,21,663/- on 02.06.2012 and Rs.5,15,456/- on 18.06.2012, wherein OP bank agreed to pay interest at 6.25% p.a. on the date of maturity namely 17.07.2012 and 03.08.2012 respectively. However, did not transfer the matured value to his SB account on the ground that his wife and family members requested for loan for setting SSI unit to the extent of Rs.23 lakhs and the OP bank has sanctioned Rs.3 lakhs only, as the loan documents have been executed for Rs.3 lakhs only.
4. The Complainants in CC.No.26/2014 Sri.Prakash, Sri.Adiveppa and Smt.Dhanavva, being the customers of OP bank having a joint account deposited Rs.2 lakhs in their SB account expecting that the said amount was credited to their account on 03.08.2012. However, on verification of pass book, deposit amount of Rs.2 lakhs was not there and when on 08.11.2012 they asked the OP bank to credit the amount to their account did not respond, as such these Complainants, raised consumer complaint, alleging deficiency of service on the part of Ops to its customers. They raised consumer complaint U/s.12 of CP Act, 1986 before the Commission below, which was resisted by the Ops, contending that, the Complainants are their customers and they admit about deposit made by these Complainants as stated in the respective complaints and would contend that they had requested loan for setting SSI unit in the name of their family members at the cost of Rs.23 lakhs and to that effect loan of Rs.3 lakhs was sanctioned and they have executed loan documents only for Rs.3 lakhs. The loan so sanctioned was credited to the account of the borrowers and at the time of maturity the deposit was closed and from the proceeds of fixed deposit the loan account was adjusted and the residue amount was credited. Absolutely there is no loss to the Complainant in CC.No.24/2014 and an amount more than Rs.14,54,495/- is credited to the Complainant account though it was not pertained to her. The Complainant has to pay Rs.11,54,495/- to the bank. In CC.No.25/2014, an excess amount of Rs.80,000/- was credited to the Complainant account though it was not pertained to him which he has to refund and in CC.No.26/2014 an amount of Rs.80,000/- has been wrongly credited to the account of Complainants though it was not pertained to them which they have to refund to the bank.
5. In view of rival contention of parties to the complaint, the Commission below held an enquiry by receiving affidavit evidence and documents placed on record, thereby concluded in CC.No.24/2014 the OP bank to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of order, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.500/- towards cost and to pay such amount within two months or else the amount carries interest at 10% p.a. from the date of the order till payment is made. In CC.No.25/2014, directed the OP bank to pay an amount of Rs.7,42,925/- along with interest at 9% p.a. from 18.06.2012 till the date of order, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.500/- towards cost and to pay such amount within two months or else the amount carries interest at 10% p.a. from the date of the order till payment is made. In CC.No.26/2014, directed the OP bank to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of order, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.500/- towards cost and to pay such amount within two months or else the amount carries interest at 10% p.a. from the date of the order till payment is made.
6. Thus, the above orders are impugned in these appeals U/s.15 of CP Act, 1986 along with an IA under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, seeking permission to produce documents annexed as additional documents, which is ordered to be heard along with main appeals by this Commission by an order dtd.09.10.17 of this Commission.
7. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant in all the appeals on main and also on IA.No.3 and we examined the impugned order passed by the Commission below and examined the additional documents produced under IA.No.3. Now we have to examine whether in view of the additional documents produced along with IA.No.3, the appellant/OP bank could be permitted to produce such documents and if permitted, whether, impugned order passed by the Commission below could be maintained in these appeals Or required to be interfered in these appeals ?.
8. Admittedly all the Complainants are holding their respective banking transactions with the OP bank/appellant. In so for as their deposits made with OP bank/appellant as stated in the respective complaints are concerned are not at all disputed by the OP bank. Learned counsel for the appellant bank would submit, the only lapses of the appellant was that they disbursed the money to the Complainants without securing the FD receipts, which situation has been misused by the Complainants. Further would submit that just by mere production of certain documents which are available in usual course the authenticity of which is not in doubt, are placed along with the IA No.3 required to be examined by the Commission, since the dubious procedure adopted by the Complainants have not caught attention of the District Commission. Further appellant would submit that the appellant branch had in fact agreed to set right the infirmity by regularizing the loan subject to the terms and conditions. When the Complainants realized that the FD receipts were in fact with them and that the loan on FD was also disbursed by the appellant, instead of showing bonafides by going over to the appellant branch and completing the loan formalities, as also returning the FDs to the appellant branch, the Complainants have misused the trust reposed on them by the appellant and has restored to keeping the FD receipts, thereby has intentionally cheated the appellant branch. Thus, would contend these aspects were not at all appreciated by the Commission below and the Commission has failed to perceive the facts in right perception.
9. Let us examine the documents produced by the OP/appellant under IA.3, one by one, they are:
Doc.No.1: Loan application recommendation dtd.22.02.2011 received through the office of the Joint Director of Industries and Commerce Department, District industries centre Bagalkot.
Doc.No.2: Project report submitted by the Complainants/borrowers towards setting up of a Cattle Feed Unit.
Doc.No.3: Application form submitted by the borrower through the ‘Prime Ministers Employment Generation Scheme’ seeking financial assistance from the appellant branch.
Doc.No.4 & 5: Plan and estimation for construction of Unit building.
Doc.No.6 to 9 are the documents executed by the borrower in furtherance of the proposal to disburse the loan in their favour which are Simple Mortgage Deed (SD-14), Demand Promissory Note, Supplementary Agreement to SD-03 hypothecation agreement and Letter of Guarantee
Doc.No.10: Sanction advice
Doc.No.11: Proposal for ‘sanction of term loan’
Doc.No.12: Valuation Report – indicating that the funds disbursed in favour of the borrower as against their fixed deposits being used towards the implementation of the cattle Feed Project
Doc.No.13: Convey of sanction – term loan
Doc.No.14: Letter showing borrowers in fact not coming forward to avail the loan as sanctioned.
Doc.No.15 & 16: Account Ledger Inquiry/FD statements
Doc.No.17 & 18: Loan account statement as against the FD
Doc.No.19: PMEGP loan account statement
Doc.No.20 to 22: Statement of Savings Bank account No.751, 419 & 1006 of the borrowers
Doc.No.23: Letter to borrowers to get reconcile in respect of certain amounts were wrongly credited to their accounts
Doc.No.24: Vouchers – demonstrating that the borrowers had in fact used the wrongful credits to make payments to their vendors and other business requirements.
10. Thus, the Commission examined all the above documents which are commencing from ink page No.32 to 130, wherein at ink page No.73 found “the simple mortgage for Rs.23.71 lakhs is already done on 11.04.2011”. Ink page No.96 is the letter dtd.28.03.2013 written to Smt.Neelavva Prakash Ramgond informing “sanctioned with a additional term loan of Rs.20.71 lakhs for Cattle feed production’’. Ink page No.97 is the inter office letter dtd.22.01.2014 informing Branch Manager that ‘even after receiving the sanction copy from RO, conveyed the same to the party, but so far party has not come forward for availing the loan’. Ink pages No.100 to 112 are the statement of account for the relevant period. Ink page No.113 is the letter dtd.08.02.2014 addressed to Smt.Neelavva Prakash Ramgond in respect of her accounts with their branch informing her once again to verify the entries credited/debited to her account and make payment of the same to the bank immediately as the amount does not pertain to her, any further clarifications are required you may call on us during office hours any time. In this letter she was called upon to pay Rs.11,54,495/-. Ink page No.117 is the letter dtd.26.03.2014 addressed to Sri.K.S.Deshpande (Advocate) informing branch wrongly credited Rs.80,000/- to the account of the Complainant on 16.07.2012. There was an irregularity in opening of the deposit receipt of Rs.2,21,663/-. The Complainant deliberately suppressed many facts. The Complainant has to pay Rs.11,54,495/-. Thus all these documents are placed on record to be receive it as an additional documents, as they are necessary documents for just adjudication of the appeals. It is therefore, considering the fact that appellant in all the appeals being a nationalised bank holding operation with public money, as such it would be just and proper to permit the appellant herein to produce all these documents for just adjudication of the complaints in exercise of procedure contemplated under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. Since, we are of the view that no one should be allowed to enrich themselves for some lapses or procedural irregularity that to while dealing with money matters.
11. In the above such conclusion we are of the considered view that commission to interfere in these appeals for just arrival of a right decision to be taken by the District Commission, since we have to direct the Commission below to receive the documents produced by OP.1/appellant under IA.No.3 filed under order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and appreciate in right perceiving the facts.
12. Accordingly, we allow all the appeals. Consequently set aside the impugned orders passed in CC.Nos.24, 25 & 26/2014 respectively dated.02.08.2014 Passed by DCDRF, Bagalkot and remanded the matters to decide afresh with a direction to receive the additional documents, affording opportunity to both parties to the complaints.
13. The commission below is directed to decide the complaints as early as possible. The parties to the appeals are directed to bear their own cost.
14. The amount in deposit in these appeals is directed to be transfer to the Commission below to refund in favour of the OP.1.
15. Copy of the common order is directed to be kept in the connected appeals.
16. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.
Lady Member Judicial Member
*NSG*
