Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/753/2010

Bank Of India Through Branch Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Dhanno Devi w/o Ring Lal - Opp.Party(s)

Shyam Vyas

10 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 753 /2010

 

Bank of India Br.Raja Kheda through Br.Manager & ors.

Vs.

Smt.Dhanno Devi w/o Sh.Ringlal, Sh.Bhaawani Singh,Sh.Maharaj Singh, Sh.Vasudev and Sr.Pramod all sons of Sh.Ringlal r/o village Nayla,Tehsil Raja Kheda,Distt. Dholpur & ors.

 

Date of Order 10.8.2015

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

 

Mr.Shiv Vyas counsel for the appellant

Mr.Jitendra Kumar Sharma counsel for the complainants- respondents

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned

2

 

DCF Dholpur dated 18.3.2010 by which it allowed the complaint.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that the complainant wanted to purchase a Balvan 450 tractor and had approached opposite party no.3. The OP no.3 promised that a finance of Rs. 3,17,900/- will be arranged from the Bank of India and the margin money of 25% i.e. Rs.56,500 will have to be deposited by the complainant with the bank. Then the bank will issue a D.D. of Rs.3,74,050/- in favour of opposite party no.3 i.e. the cost of the tractor. The necessary formalities were completed . The complainant alleges that he had deposited Rs. 56,500/- with the bank but later on the opposite party no.3 did not deliver him the tractor. On inquiry it was found that opposite party no.3 did receive Rs. 3,74,050/- from the bank but this amount was returned to the bank by opposite party no.3 as the complainant did not come to take the delivery of the tractor. The opposite party no.3 also submitted that margin money of Rs.56,500/- was also deposited by it on behalf of the complainant on the promise that it will be paid by the complainant at the time of delivery but the complainant did not turn up. The learned DCF after inquiry found that the

 

3

 

complainant had deposited the margin money with the bank and it ordered the bank to refund the money.

 

We have heard the learned counsels for the appellant and the complainant and have considered their arguments. The opposite party no.3 has not appeared before us.

 

On perusal of the record we find that the margin money of Rs. 56,500/- was not deposited by the complainant. There are two documents available on record which bear thumb impression of the complainant and two witnesses. As per these documents the margin money was deposited by opposite party no.3. Moreover, the complainant has not adduced any evidence or produced any receipt which proves that this money was directly deposited by the complainant with the bank.

 

In para 5 of the complaint it has been mentioned that complainant's son Vasudev had fallen seriously ill and he was admitted at Delhi in Sir Gangaram Hospital for three months and the complainant did not go to take the delivery of the tractor. This fact itself shows that though the opposite party no.3 had received the finance from the bank but when the complainant

 

4

 

did not turn up for three months, they sold the tractor to somebody else as the margin money was paid by them.

 

The record also reveals that though opposite party no.3 had received the payment from the bank on 30.1.2004 and the tractor was not delivered to the complainant still it retained the money till 18.11.2005, before the bank had also issued notices to the opposite party no.3 on 22.5.2004, 20.8.2004 and 14.12.2004 for sending the necessary documents in respect of the tractor sold. After that money was deposited back by the opposite party no.3.

 

Thus, in view of this discussion, the complainant never deposited the margin money and never took delivery of the tractor. The opposite party no.3 received the full amount from the bank but they failed to deposit the amount with the bank when the tractor was not delivered. The complainant did not contact the opposite party no.3 for three months on account of illness of Vasudev. Thus, the interest on the loan amount if any, from the date of disbursement to date of re-payment shall be borne by the opposite party no.3 Patasaria Tractors, Dholpor.

 

In view of this, we allow the appeal of the bank and

5

 

modify the order of the learned DCF which directed the bank to refund the margin money of Rs.56,500/- with interest @ 8% p.a. to the complainant. The outstanding interest from 30.1.2004 to the date of re-payment shall be borne by the opposite party no.3.

 

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Presiding Member

 

nm