Bihar

StateCommission

A/349/2015

Branch Manager, State Bank of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sanjay Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Chitranjan Kumar Verma

01 Feb 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BIHAR, PATNA
FINAL ORDER
 
First Appeal No. A/349/2015
( Date of Filing : 19 Nov 2015 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 30/09/2015 in Case No. 28/2013 of District Gopalgang)
 
1. Branch Manager, State Bank of India
Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Gopalganj
Gopalganj
Bihar
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Sanjay Kumar
Sanjay Kumar, son of Late Rajeshwar Prasad, Resident of Jalalpur, Bisunpura Bazar, PS- Singhwalia, Dist- Gopalganj
Gopalganj
Bihar
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR PRESIDENT
  RAM PRAWESH DAS MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 01 Feb 2024
Final Order / Judgement

Dated 01.02.2024

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

 

  1. Present appeal has been filed on behalf appellant/opposite party State Bank of India for setting aside the judgment and order dated 30.09.2015 passed by Ld. District Consumer Forum, Gopalganj in Complaint case no. 28 of 2013 whereby and whereunder appellants have been directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- for deficiency in service and to pay further Rs. 2,500/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 1,500/- as cost of litigation within one month.
  2. Briefly stated the facts of the case is that complainant had obtained a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- under PMR Yojna from opposite party/State Bank of India and as security  for loan had deposited his original educational certificate and one original sale deed. Both the parties entered into a compromise for settlement of loan account before the Lok Adalat, Gopalganj on 11.12.2010 and complainant deposited the outstanding dues of Rs. 4,131/- for final settlement of his loan account.
  3. Complainant thereafter, requested opposite party no. 1 to return his original documents which he had deposited as security for the loan amount but opposite party no. 1 inspite of calling complainant several times in the branch did not return the original documents on one pretext or the other as such complainant filed consumer complaint case before the District Consumer Forum against the State Bank of India for return of his original documents as well as for adequate compensation for physical and mental harassment and cost of litigation upon which notices were issued to opposite parties.
  4. Opposite party no. 1 appeared and filed its written statement stating therein that complainant had obtained Rs. 1,00,000/- as loan and for security for loan amount he had deposited his original educational certificate as well as original sale deed but complainant never turned up to take back those original documents. They have brought original documents in Forum and can be handed over to complainant.
  5. The District Consumer Forum after hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record held that after settlement of the loan account opposite party no. 1 returned the original educational certificate but did not returned the original sale deed for which no valid explanation or reason has been assigned by opposite party no. 1 which amounts to deficiency in service and allowed the complaint case of complainant, aggrieved by which present appeal has been filed on behalf of State Bank of India.
  6. Perused the order as impugned in this appeal and written arguments filed by parties as well as materials available on record.
  7. The specific case of the complainant is that he had obtained loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- under PMRY and as security for loan he had deposited his original education certificate as well as original sale deed. Matter was compromised before the Lok Adalat and loan account was finally settled between the parties. Complainant thereafter, approached the bank for return of original educational certificate as well as original sale deed but same was refused on one pretext or the other as such he had to approach Consumer Forum for return of his original documents. Appellant/opposite party no. 1 in their written statement filed have specifically admitted original educational certificate and original sale deed in their possession but same could not be returned as complainant never visited the bank for return of original documents. In their written statement they have admitted that original document is in their possession and they have brought it in the Consumer Forum and complainant can take those documents from Fora.
  8. Having admitted such facts in their written statement they can not be subsequently permitted to take contradictory stand that original sale deed was not deposited by the complainant as security for the loan as same was not required.
  9. In said view of the matter this Commission is not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum, Gopalganj.
  10. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly, dismissed.  

 

(Ram Prawesh Das)                                                                                                        (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                                                         President

 

 

Md. Fariduzzama

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ RAM PRAWESH DAS]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.