| Complaint Case No. CC/393/2021 | | ( Date of Filing : 29 Jul 2021 ) |
| | | | 1. Smt. Suvarna | | W/o Sudesh, Aged about 40 Years,R/at. No.20,5th Cross,Rajarajeshwari Nilaya,Kengeri Sun City,Bengaluru-560060. | | 2. Sri. Sudesh | | S/o. Giddegowda, Aged about 52 Years, Working as Lorry Driver, R/at No.20,5th Cross,Rajarajeshwari Nilaya,Kengeri Sun City,Bengaluru-560060 |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Sri. Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank (N) | | Represented by its Chief Executive Officer/Administrator,No.Dobbarama Chetty Road,Nettakalappa Circle,Basavanagudi,Bengaluru-560004. | | 2. Sri. Ashokan | | Administrator, Sri.Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank(N), No.15,Dobbarama Chetty Road, Nettakalappa Circle,Basavanagudi,Bengaluru-560004. | | 3. Sri. Mallikarjuna Gupta | | Chief Executive Officer, Sri.Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank(N), No.15,Dobbarama Chetty Road, Nettakalappa Circle,Basavanagudi,Bengaluru-560004. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | Complaint filed on: 29.07.2021 | Disposed on:18.04.2022 |
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN) DATED 18th DAY OF APRIL 2022 PRESENT:- SRI.K.S.BILAGI | : | PRESIDENT | SMT.RENUKADEVI DESHPANDE | : | MEMBER | SRI.H.JANARDHAN | : | MEMBER |
COMPLAINANTS | - Smt. Suvarna, W/o Sudesh, aged about 40 years,
- Sri Sudesh, S/o Giddegowda, aged about 52 years, working as Lorry Driver
Both are R/at No.20, 5th Cross, Rajarajeshwari Nilaya, Kengeri Sun City, Bangalore-560060. | (M.B.Ravi Kumar, Adv.) | | OPPOSITE PARTIES | - Sri Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank (N), represented by its Chief Executive Officer/Administrator
- Sri Ashokan, Administrator,
- Sri Mallikarjuna Gupta, Chief Executive Officer,
All are at Sri Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank (N), No.15, Dubbarama Chetty Road, Nettakalappa Circle, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru-560004. (Akshay S.Vasist, Adv. – OP Nos.1 to 3) |
ORDER SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT
1. The joint complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019 (herein under referred as an Act) with the permission of this Commission for the following reliefs against the OPs:- (a) Direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental harassment and agony. (b) Direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards deficiency of service. (c) Cost of the complaint. (d) Such other reliefs. 2. The case set up by the complainants in brief is as under:- The complainant Nos.1 and 2 are wife and husband have availed Rs.35,00,000/- loan from OP No.1 during the year 2012 vide loan account No.101900000091 and agreed to repay in equal monthly installment of Rs.46,611/- with interest at 14% p.a. with monthly rests. It is further case of the complainant that the OPs issued a letter demanding payment of outstanding amount of Rs.53,00,000/- on 03.08.2020 and another letter dated 15.01.2021 showing loan liability of OP No.1 as Rs.2,31,18,000/- including interest upto 31.12.2020. OP No.1 had send another letter dated 28.01.2021 stating that sum of Rs.96,09,708.23 including interest upto 31.12.2020 is due from the complainants. The OPs have demanded different amount on different dates. 3. 20 years old daughter of the complainants is differently disabled, suffering from generalized dystonia and she is bed ridden. The complainant No.1 is the house wife and complainant No.2 is working as a driver without any permanent income. - The complainants have paid Rs.25,00,000/- and they have documents for paid Rs.11,79,600/-. They are ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs.41,20,380/- towards legal liability.
- Manur Vasudeva Maiya has fabricated the bank account and committed suicide. The inaction of the OPs amounts to deficiency of service.
- In response to the notice, the OPs appeared through their counsel, but failed to file version.
- The complainants have filed affidavit evidence of complainant No.1 and relies on 11 documents. Heard the arguments of advocate for complainants only. Perused the written arguments of the complainant. No argument is advanced on behalf of OPs.
8. The following points arise for our consideration:- - Whether the complainants prove the deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
- Whether the complainants are entitled to reliefs mentioned in the complaint?
- What order?
- Our answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1:- In the negative. Point No.2 :- In the negative. Point No.3:-per final orders REASONS - Point Nos.1 and 2:Even though, OPs appeared through counsel, but they failed to file version. The affidavit evidence of complainant No.1 and documentary evidence of the complainants remained unchallenged.
- It is admitted by the complainants that the complainant No.1 as borrower, borrowed the loan of Rs.35,00,000/- from OP No.1 during 2012 by furnishing complainant Nos.2 as a surety. The complainants have produced 7 receipts under Ex.P.1 for having paid in all Rs.6,19,000/- only. Even though, complainants plead that they have paid Rs.25,00,000/-, but this fact has not been established.
- It is proved from Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5 that the OP No.1 issued letter dated 03.08.2020 calling the complainants to close the account by paying Rs.53,00,000/-, letter dated 15.01.2021 to pay Rs.2,31,18,000/- and letter dated 28.01.2021 demanding Rs.96,09,708.23 from the complainants. These letters were issued within a span of 5 months demanding the complainants to pay different amount. But, the complainants got issued the Ex.P.6 legal notice dated 03.03.2021 for which OPs have issued a reply dated 20.03.2021 disowning other two letters and they stick on to the latest letter dated 21.01.2021 calling the complainants to repay the dues of Rs.96,09,708.23. It is true that the complaint came to be filed against Manur Vasudeva Maiya and others at the instance of OP No.1. It is also admitted fact that Manur Vasudeva Maiay has committed suicide.
- According to the complainants, a sum of Rs.41,20,380/- only due from them towards loan and they are ready to pay this amount. But, complainants have not come forward to pay Rs.41,20,380/-. When the OPs have issued reply dated 20.03.2021 demanding only Rs.96,09,708.23 by the supersession of other letter/notices issued contrary to the above amount. Under such circumstances, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs. The complainants fail to prove that they under went mental trauma due to such a high demand. Complainants are not entitled to any amount.
- Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, the complaint requires to be dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following
O R D E R - The complaint is dismissed.
- Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
- Furnish the copy of this order to both parties as per law.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 18th day of March, 2022) (Renukadevi Deshpande) MEMBER | (H.Janardhan) MEMBER | (K.S.Bilagi) PRESIDENT |
Documents produced by the Complainants are as follows: 1. | Ex.P.1 – Bunch of seven payment receipts | 2. | Ex.P.2 – Copy of letter issued by NIMHANS dated 12.06.2019 | 3. | Ex.P.3 – Letter issued by OP No.1 dated 03.08.2020 | 4. | Ex.P.4 – Copy of letter of OP No.1 dated 15.01.2021 | 5. | Ex.P.5 – Copy of letter of OP No.1 dated 28.01.2021 | 6. | Ex.P.6 – Copy of legal notice dated 30.03.2021 | 7. | Ex.P.7 – Copy of letter of OP No.1 dated 30.03.2021 | 8. | Ex.P.8 – Postal receipts | 9. | Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 – Two postal acknowledgements | 11. | Ex.P.11 – Copy of FIR with copy of complaint |
(Renukadevi Deshpande) MEMBER | (H.Janardhan) MEMBER | (K.S.Bilagi) PRESIDENT |
| |
