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

DATED: 14.08.2023

PRESENT

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT

Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR  :       JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs. DIVYASHREE M :      LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NOs. 1251/2023 & 1252.2023

COMMON ORDER

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT

01.    The opposite party filed these Appeals under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 challenging the impugned order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bidar, in CC No.76/2019 & 77/2019, dated: 22.03.2023.

02.    The parties to these Appeals will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the Commission below.

03.    The brief facts of the Appeal No.1251/2023 is that, the mother of the complainant Smt. Siddamma, W/o. Hanamgond is   S.B. account holder of opposite party No.1-Bank bearing account No.8273.  It was noticed by the complainant that, on 16.04.2015 opposite party Nos.1 & 2 in collusion with another person Rajkumar Malipatil had withdrawn Rs.31,000/- from her account and subsequently opposite parties sanctioned KCC loan of Rs.50,020/- on 26.02.2016 and further amount of Rs.50,080/- was transferred to complainant’s mother account on 01.03.2017 by way of ADJ KCC Loan and on 19.06.2019 opposite party No.2 sanctioned Rs.50,000/- as KCC Loan and deposited to complainant’s mother account and thereafter said KCC loan of Rs.50,000/- was withdrawn by opposite parity Nos.1 & 2 and all these transactions happened without due knowledge of the account holder or complainant.  On 2.06.2018 opposite party No.1 in collusion with Rajkumar had withdrawn KCC loan of Rs.50,000/- from the SB account of complainant’s mother by creating false and fabricated documents.  On 20.08.2018 opposite party No.1 transferred Rs.13,000/- to account No.5713 without due intimation.  After noticing the above complainant issued legal notice dated: 11.10.2019 to the opposite parties and made several approaches to the opposite party-Bank authorities, but all went in vain. 

04.    The brief facts of Appeal No.1252/2023 are that, the father of the complainant namely Hanamgond during his life time had obtained   SB account No.8272 from the opposite party – Bank and he died on 03.02.2017.  It was noticed by the complainant that, subsequent to death on 31.03.2017 opposite parties have sanctioned KCC loan of Rs.20,000/- and had deposited the same.  The complainant and his mother went to opposite parties bank several times to obtain information about SB account details, but the opposite parties did not give any details.  Hence on 02.06.2019 complainant lodged complaint to Santapur Police Station.  Further urged that, on 16.04.2018 an amount of Rs.4,000/- was withdrawn to show that, the father of the complainant had withdrawn the said amount, but actually the father of the complainant had not withdrawn the said amount.  On 26.02.2016 by transfer KCC loan amount of Rs.20,000/- was sanctioned in the name of the complainant’s father without any loan application which clearly shows that opposite parties have illegally created the documents in the name of Late Hanamgond and had withdrawn the said amount.  On 18.07.2018 again Ra.19,300/- was sanctioned as KCC loan without any intimation to the complainant.  On 28.08.2018 an amount of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn as self and the complainant learnt that, one Mr. Rajkumar, S/o. Hanmanthrao Mali Patil said to have withdrawn the said amounts and the same was informed to the opposite parties.  The complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 11.10.2019 and made several approaches with the opposite party – Bank authorities, but all went in vain. 

05.    The District Commission after enquiring into the matters had partly allowed the Consumer Complaint Nos.76/2019 & 77/2019 and         aggrieved by these impugned orders dated: 22.03.2023, the opposite party – DCC Bank had filed these Appeals.

06.    Heard the learned counsel for Appellants on admission.  During the course of arguments the counsel for appellants  submitted that, the quantum of compensation and cost awarded by the District Commission in each case is on the higher side and the OP-Bank could not able to bear the same and hence prayed to modify the impugned order by reducing the same. 

07.    On perusal the impugned orders dated: 20.05.2023 passed by the District Commission in C.C. Nos. 76 & 77 of 2019 it reveals that, in each case the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.  We feel the quantum of compensation and cost awarded by the District Commission as submitted by the counsel for Appellant in each case is on the higher side as such   it is just and proper to direct the opposite party No.1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.6,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant in each case.  Accordingly the impugned orders dated: 20.05.2023 passed in C.C. Nos.76 & 77 of 2019 are hereby modified and the Appeal Nos.1251 & 1252/2023 filed by the Appellants are hereby allowed-in-part with no order as to costs.

08.    The amount kept in deposit by the appellant in each case shall be transferred to the District Commission for needful.      

09.    The original order shall be kept in Appeal No.1251/2023 and the certified copy of the same shall be kept in Appeal No.1252/2023.

10.    Provide copy of this order to the District Commission as well as to the parties to the Appeals.

LADY MEMBER        JUDICIAL MEMBER         PRESIDENT

KNMP*