BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT VISAKHAPATNAM
F.A.NO.704 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO. 50 OF 2013 DISTRICT FORUM SRIKAKULAM
Between:
The Branch Manager
State Bank of India
Narasannapeta, Srikakulam Dist.
Appellant/opposite party
A N D
Sri Tadi Terrayya S/o late Yerrayya
Aged 66 years, R/o D.No.1-127
Polaki Village, Post & Md.,
Srikakulam District
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant M/s V.Srikrishnudu
Counsel for the Respondents M/s A.Rama Rao
QUORUM:
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order (As per Sri Thota Ashok Kumar, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The opposite party is the appellant. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is having S.B.A/c bearing No.11028699992 in opposite party bank and he is drawing his pension through the said SB Account. On 6.2.2010 the complainant availed a pension loan bearing A/c No.31049264344 for an amount of 59,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 15% per annum with EMI of 2500/- per month which was automatically recovered from the SB Account of the complainant. The complainant in the month of May 2011 has paid an amount of 21,000/- towards pension loan account and closed the said account. After closing the said pension loan account, the complainant has availed another pension loan of 1,00,000/- on 24.5.2011 bearing A/c No.31759353861 with interest @ 14.50% per annum to be repaid at 3,500/- per month. The complainant paid total 14 monthly instalments to the tune of 59,000/- and the complainant with an intention to close the loan account approached the opposite party to know the balance amount. The opposite party informed the complainant that he is due of an amount of 72,286/- towards the said 2nd pension loan amount. The complainant after clearing the said loan amount took the extract of pension loan account and found that there was discrepancy inthe statement. In the statement of account the complainant found that an amount of 16,846/- was debited from his loan account on 11.9.2012 by mentioning as erroneous credit and when questioned the opposite party informed that they transferred an amount of 2,000/- per month from the S.B. account of one Annapurna Muddada LTI to the earlier pension loan account of the complainant and in total an amount of 30,846/- was credited to his account and as such the same was adjusted for an amount of 14,000/- as erroneous credit from the complainant’s loan account and still there is a balance of 16,846/- which was adjusted in the present loan account. The complainant again obtained account copy of his earlier loan account and the SB account of Annapurna Muddada LTI and found that the entire erroneous debits from the account of Annapurna loan account to the complainant’s loan account was in the month of September 2010 itself and immediately an amount of 14,000/- was adjusted from the complainant’s account as erroneous credits and subsequently the opposite party did not stop erroneous credits through the same. It was also found that the payment made at the time of closing the earlier pension loan account was not shown in the said loan account. The opposite party did not inform the erroneous credits to the complainant. When he questioned about unauthorized credits in his loan account the opposite party with held an amount of l7,000/- in the S.B. Account of the complainant. Hence, the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to refund the missing credit amount of 21,000/- to the complainant, to release the amount of 7,000/- which was set hold and to pay compensation and costs.
3. The opposite party resisted the case contending that the complainant availed pension loan amount of 50,000/- on 6.2.2010 from the opposite party bank. As per agreement the complainant agreed to credit 2,500/- every month from and out of his pension account till 28.4.2011 i.e., for 15 months. By mistake an amount of 2,000/- p.m. from SB account of Annapurna Muddada was debited to her account and credited the same to the pension account of the complainant since 28.2.2010 to 31.8.2010 totaling to 14,000/- and the said mistake was found and therefore reversed the said amount of Rs.14,000/- to the account of Annapurna Muddada Account on 3.9.2010. After reversing the said amount of 14,000/- on 3.9.2010 to the account of Annapurana as SI were not changed in the said account again credited an amount of Rs.2,000/- every month to the loan account of the complainant from 30.09.2010 to 1.5.2011 totaling to 16,000/- from the account of Annapurna on that the loan account of the complainant was closed by 1.6.2011. The complainant knowing fully well the credits of 2,000/- from other account to his loan account closed the account and submitted another application cum authority letter to the opposite party for another loan of 1,00,000/- and the opposite party disbursed the same amount to him under loan account No.31759353861. As per cause 4 and 5 of application cum authority letter the opposite party adjusted 10,000/- and 6,846/- on 11.9.2012 which amount already credited to old loan account of the complainant from the account of Annapurna Muddada. The complainant is benefited an amount of 2724/- towards interest portion of loan A/c No.31049264344 by way of double credits i.e., 2,000/- from 28.2.2010 to 1.5.2011 totaling to 30,000/- from other account. The complainant did not sustain any loss to his old and present account and it is the opposite party who suffered loss and thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant and the opposite party filed their respective affidavits reiterating their stands aforesaid Exs.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked on behalf of the opposite party.
5. Having heard both side counsel and considering the material on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party refund the missing credit amount of 21,000/- and also release the amount of 7,000/- which was set hold and also directed to pay 2,000/- towards compensation and costs of 2,000/-.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party filed the present appeal contending that there is no proof on record to show that the complainant has deposited the amount to the credit of his account and he not even mentioned the date of payment of the alleged missing credit amount of 21,000/-. The opposite party has not set either 7,000/- or any other amount in the SB account of the complainant at any point of time. The complainant is not a consumer as defined u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thus prayed to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order consequently to dismiss the complaint.
7. The counsel for both parties filed their written arguments.
8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated from misappreciation of facts or law?
9. There is no dispute that the complainant is a pensioner and he has S.B.A/c No.11028699992 in the opposite party bank. Similarly it is not in dispute that the complainant was sanctioned a pension loan of 50,000/- by the opposite party bank on 6.2.2010 vide A/c No.31049264344 and that he agreed to repay the said loan @ 2,500/- per month. The contention of the complainant is that to clear of and close the said pension loan he paid 21,000/- in the month of May 2011 and accordingly it was closed, but the said payment of 21,000/- was not reflected in his loan account aforesaid. He did not file any counterfoil or other convincing documentary evidence to the effect that he paid the said amount of 21,000/- for closure of the said pension loan and self-serving statement of the complainant in the said context is not sufficient to believe his version.
10. It is also the case of the complainant that after closing the said pension loan account he availed another pension loan of 1,00,000/- on 24.5.2011 vide loan account No.31759353861 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 14.5% per annum by way of equal monthly instalments @ 3500/- per month permitting the opposite party to recover the said EMI from his SB Account aforesaid and that it was being debited nearly for 14 months and two instalments @ 5,000/- per month from his SB account and credited the same to his second pension loan account and thus in total he paid 59,000/- towards repayment of the second pension loan. The complainant also contended that in order to close the second pension loan account he approached the opposite party bank and enquired as to how much still he has to pay to clear the entire second pension loan and then the opposite arty asked him to pay 72,286/- and in such circumstances he entertained doubt with regard to calculation of interest etc., as the computer ledger had shown high balance than actually he was due to pay but the opposite party did not care the same and asserted that the computer never commit mistakes and in such circumstances he paid the said amount of 72,286/- to clear of the second pension loan account and later on since he entertained a doubt with regard to the calculation he obtained statement copy of his second pension loan account and found that an amount of 16,846/- was debited from his pension loan account on 11.9.2012 and that the statement of account dated 11.9.2012 revealed the debit adjustment of Rs.10,000/- and another on the same date showing the debit adjustment of Rs.6,846/- totaling to Rs.16,846/- and that both the said entries were erroneous and when questioned the opposite party replied that erroneously an amount of 2,000/- per month were transferred from the SB A/c of one Muddada Annapurna to his earlier pension loan account bearing No.31049264344 and in total 3,846/- was credited into the complainant’s loan account aforesaid and the same was adjusted for an amount of 14,000/- in earlier pension account and the balance of 16,846/- to be adjusted in the second pension account no.31759353861 on 11.9.2012 and accordingly the same was adjusted. In such circumstances the complainant had obtained statement of his earlier pension loan account and the statement of the said Annapurnamma and came to know that the amount which was debited from the complainant’s pension loan was not credited to the loan account of the said AnnapurnaMuddada.
11. The complainant also contended that once the earlier account was closed and subsequently another loan was granted to him on 24.5.2011 question of debit adjustment of 16,846/- on 11.9.2012 towards earlier loan account does not arise and that he paid Rs.21,000/- in the month of May 2011 for closing the earlier loan and that without any right to adjust the amount of 16,846/- the opposite party erroneously debited the said amount in the second loan and that he did not give any consent or permission and that it was so done without giving any information to him and as such it does not bind him and thus contended that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in deducting the amounts totaling to 21,000/- from his account after closing the earlier pension and also for set holding 7,000/- in his SB Account.
12. The opposite party has stated in Ex.A6 notice dated 7.1.2013 addressed to the counsel for the complainant that an amount of 2,000/- which was to be credited into the pension loan account no.31048275506 of Smt Annapurna instead of it, it was credited into the loan account of the complainant and that the complainant is very much familiar and aware of all the transactions and that on account of double credit into the complainant’s account loan no.31049264344 (earlier Loan account) was closed well before actual tenure of the loan and thereafter the complainant once again availed 1,00,000/- loan on 25.4.2011 and hence to rectify the error the opposite party debited 14,000/- to the loan account No.31049264344 on 3.9.2010 and 16,486/- from him new loan account no.31759353861 on 11.9.2012 and credited the same into loan account no.31048275506 of Smt Annapurna Muddada and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party but taking advantage of wrong credits crept in the account of the complainant, he is trying to enrich himself and thus contended to dismiss the complaint.
13. As already described supra, the complainant did not file any counter foil or other dependendable documentary evidence to the effect that he deposited 21,000/- (alleged missing credit amount) into the credit of his account and therefore the self serving statement of the complainant is not sufficient to decide the said aspect in his favour. Specifically the complainant did not dispute the wrong credits in his favour and vaguely mentioned that he had deposited the said amount of 21,000/- at the time of closing the first pension loan account and therefore no substance is found in his favour in the said context. Similarly he did not place any dependable material or evidence on record to say that the opposite party has set hold either Rs.7000/- or any other amount in his SB account at any point of time and in such circumstances the question of releasing the amount by the opposite party does not arise. The complainant did not dispute or deny about transfer of amounts from the account of Annapurna Muddada to his loan account by the opposite party bank and certainly the bank will have right to reverse the wrong credits and for that there is no need to obtain consent from the complainant. It is the responsibility of the complainant to establish that he paid either by way of debit from his SB Account or by way of cash to his loan accounts and the statement of accounts available in the record discloses that there are some wrong credits in favour of the complainant from the account of somebody and the opposite party contended that it is from the account of one Annapurna Muddada. The opposite party contended in Ex.A6 reply notice dated 7.1.2013 that to rectify the error they have debited 14,000/- to the first loan account of the complainant and 16,486/- from his new loan account and credited the same into the loan account no.31048275506 ofSmt Annapurna. It is true that the said loan account extract of Annapurna has not been filed by either of the party to the proceedings. Merely because the said aspect is not reflected in the SB Account of the said Annapurna it does not mean that it is not so credit into her loan account. He did not make the said Annapurnamma as party to the complaint and it is also fatal to his case. In view of the above discussion the order of the District Forum is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal.
14. In the result the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently the complaint stands dismissed. There is no order as to the costs of the appeal.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.15.05.2014
కె.ఎం.కె.*
