Delhi

StateCommission

FA/13/236

CANARA BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.D BHARGAVA - Opp.Party(s)

16 Feb 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 16.02.2017

 

First Appeal-236/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 19.12.2012 passed by the District Forum-II, New Delhi in complaint case No. 684/10)

 

 

        In the Matter of:

               

          Canara Bank, a body corporate

          Incorporated under the Banking

          Companies (Acquisition and Transfer

          of undertaking) Act, 1970 (Act No. 5

          of 1970) having its head office at 112,

          J.C. Road, Bangalore and amongst others

          a branch office at Green Park, New Delhi

          (Through its constituted Attorney)

……. Appellant      Versus       Sh. R.D. Bhargava,   S/o Sh.  Tarachand Bhargava,   R/o A-3/23, Sector-IV   Rohini, New Delhi                                                                                …….Respondent

CORAM

 

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

1.             This is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act against the order dated 19.12.2012 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 684/10.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant was a retired employee of appellant/OP bank who had obtained a housing loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- in April, 2010 which respondent/complainant started repaying in installments of Rs. 700/- per month initially and from June 2002 the same was increased upto Rs. 1500/- per month and further increased it up to 2,000/- from January 2005. It was alleged that he cleared all his loan amount and discharged his liability and after that had asked statement of account from the appellant/OP bank as he found some disparity in the interest in September 2000. It was alleged that he informed the Branch about wrong calculation of the interest. The respondent/complainant also informed the same to the Branch regarding over charging of the interest. The appellant/OP reversed the excess charging of interest on 24.08.2005. Second time also the appellant/OP reversed an amount of Rs. 12,283/- on 09.04.2007 and again on 04.12.2007 an amount of Rs. 5874/-was reversed. According to the respondent/complainant he had repaid the entire amount as per schedule on 12.11.2008 vide IBA No. 3061 after crediting Rs. 68,64,403/- in his account. According to the respondent/complainant he was entitled to receive Rs. 2,228/- which was excessively paid by him. On the other hand, appellant/OP as per their system was demanding Rs. 7000/- which was allegedly overdue to the respondent/complainant. The respondent/complainant wrote a letter prior to his retirement on 23.09.2008 to the appellant/OP bank about statement of his account which was to be settled positively in the first week of November 2008 but appellant/OP did not take any action. The allegation of the respondent/complainant was that one of the employees, namely, Rangnath of appellant/OP bank had flatly denied to release the documents of his house until and unless the respondent/complainant pays an amount of Rs. 7000/- to the bank.

3.             Aggrieved by the conduct of the appellant/OP bank, the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum for the payment of Rs. 2,228/- as excess amount charged by the appellant/OP bank along with interest of 24% and also Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation.

4.             The Ld. District Forum issued notice to the appellant/OP and appellant/OP appeared before the Ld. District Forum and sought time to file reply on 19.10.2011 and again on 29.05.2012 but no one had appeared on behalf of appellant/OP before the Ld. District Forum despite giving sufficient opportunities and hence appellant/OP proceeded ex-parte.

5.             The respondent/complainant had filed evidence by way of affidavit as well as written arguments.

6.             At the time of final hearing before the Ld. District Forum appellant/OP bank appeared and handed over the demand draft of Rs. 2,228/- along with letter dated 17.09.2012 wherein it was mentioned that after checking the respondent’s/complainant’s housing loan account it has been observed that the system had debited Rs. 2,228/- as an excess amount by the appellant/OP bank. The said draft of Rs. 2,228/- was taken by respondent/complainant before the Ld. District Forum. It has been observed by the Ld. District Forum that appellant/OP has accepted its mistake, by refunding Rs. 2,228/- to the respondent/complainant for which the respondent/complainant had filed the complaint and held appellant/OP deficient in service, and directed appellant/OP to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and also Rs. 5,000/- as costs of litigation.

7.             Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Ld. District Forum the appellant/OP has filed the present appeal for setting aside the impugned order by contending that the order passed by the Ld. District Forum was an ex-parte order therefore appellant/OP be allowed to file its evidence and to contest the matter on merits.

8.             We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9.             We have carefully gone through the submissions made by the parties. It is apparent from the impugned order that an officer of the appellant/OP bank had appeared before the District Forum on 13.09.2011 who did not file reply and sought time to file reply. The Ld. District Forum allowed his prayer and fixed 19.10.2011 for filing reply. Again the counsel appeared and sought time to file reply and the case was adjourned for 29.05.2012. On 29.05.2012 no one had appeared on behalf of appellant/OP despite the matter was called thrice and the District Forum proceeded ex-parte against the appellant/OP.

10.            In view of the above orders passed by the Ld. District Forum there is no ground for setting aside the ex-parte order because despite giving sufficient opportunities to  the appellant/OP itself, the appellant/OP did not file reply and then stopped appearing of its own. However at the time of final arguments the appellant/OP appeared and paid Rs. 2,228/- to the respondent/complainant along with a letter dated 17.09.2012 wherein it has been admitted by the appellant/OP that because of the problem in the system of the bank, appellant/OP had wrongly debited Rs. 2,228/- from the account of the respondent/complainant. And in a way it is an admission on behalf of the appellant/OP whereby the appellant/OP has admitted its negligence. Now come to the compensation part, the Ld. District Forum has awarded Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- as litigation costs to the respondent/complainant. Looking into the harassment of the respondent/complainant who was an ex employee of appellant bank and was humiliated for more than 8 years the compensation awarded is not on excessive side. Hence we find no infirmity or illegality in the order of the Ld. District forum. The appeal stand dismissed.

                A copy of the order be sent to the parties as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information.

                File be consigned to record room.

(N P Kaushik)

Member (Judicial)

 

 

   (Salma Noor)

Member