Date of filing:- 12/02/2015.
Date of Order:-14/12/2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTED REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H
Consumer Complaint No. 08 of 2015
Dr Prakash Narayan Tripathy S/oLate Gouri Shankar Tripathy R/O-Law college road ,Bargarh ..... ..... .... Complainant.
- V e r s u s -
State Bank of india Represented through it’s Chief manager Bargarh Branch Main Road ,Bargarh PO/Dist-Bargarh ... ... ... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties
For the complainant:- Sri S.K. Sahu, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party:- Sri Bahadur Behera, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt. 14/12//2016 -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri K.P. Mishra, President:-
Brief fact of the case:-
The case of the complainant in brief is that he being a customer of the opposite party having a savings Bank account bearing no-11042712021 incurred a loan amounting to Rs.7,20,000/-(Rupees seven lakh twenty thousand only) from the Opposite Party Bank vide loan account no-11042888256 having being entered upon an agreement with the said Opposite Party giving a standing instruction to deduct an amount Rs.9500/-(Rupees nine thousand five hundred)only Per Month as E.M.I till final repayment of the said loan ,and further his case is that the said agreed amount of EMI was being debited from his said SB account and was being credited to his said loan account till 2014 by the Opposite Party but after that the Opposite Party has not debited the agreed amount from his SB account nor credited to his loan account rather played many irregularities by sudden transfer of huge amount of funds from his said SB account to his loan account in different occasion such as on Date 21.05..2014.& on 08.10.2014 for an amount of Rs. 23000/-(Rupees twenty three thousand)only & Rs28,515/-(Rupees twenty eight thousand five hundred fifteen) respectively causing much hardship to him both mentally and financially.
Further his allegation is that the Opposite Party has committed unfair trade practice by debiting the EMI twice in the months of November 2012 and January 2013 and also debited Rs 9659/-(Rupees nine thousand six hundred fifty nine)only instead of Rs 9500/-(Rupees nine thousand five hundred)only which is an excess of Rs.159/-(Rupees one hundred fifty nine)only of the scheduled EMI and did not provide him the details of account even after several request by him which amounts to deficiencies of service for which the present case with a prayer before the Forum to give a direction to the Opposite Party to supply him the details of his loan account and also claimed Rs.80,000/-(Rupees eighty thousand)only as compensation for his mental agony and litigation expenses and in support of his such claim he has filed photo copy of one letter of request and copies of his said SB Ac & Loan Acc .,on seeing the documents & hearing the Advocate for the complainant the case was admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Party before the forum and accordingly he appeared through his advocate but on his rival contention it has been admitted by him to the extent of the complaint as the complainant is it’s customer and also had incurred the said loan on date 22.04.2003 vide loan Account no-0159801963 which was subsequently renumbered as 11042888256 and the mode of his repayment of the loan.
Again the Opposite Party has categorically stated in it’s version that the complainant had agreed to repay the said loan amount within 120 installment i.e up to may 2014 but after that the complainant did not give any further instruction for the repayment of the rest pending dues on him amounting to Rs.60,698(Rupees sixty thousand six hundred ninety eight)only ,nor paid the installment amount for the month of june 2014 but on 21.07.2014 & on 08.10.2014 personally came to the Bank on both the occasion and paid the amounts of Rs. 23000/-(Rupees twenty three thousand)only & Rs.28515/-(Rupees twenty eight thousand five hundred fifteen) respectively and also in the similar way on his request on 01.11.2014 the Opposite Party deducted Rs.9659 and finally on 1.12.2014 he personally came to the Bank and closed his said loan account by depositing an amount of Rs1045.34. Further the Opposite Party denied to have charged any penal interest nor have ever collected any late payment charges and also was ready to provide him with repayment schedule but he himself did not turn of And to substantiate his such averment has filed the details of the loan account of the complainant.
Having gone through the entire pleading , version and documents filed from both complainant and the Opposite Party in our view a single point for determination has come up is whether the Opposite Party has committed any deficiencies in giving service to the complainant or not.
In this context before going in to the merit of the case in hand we would like to refer the definition provided U/s 2(g)(o) of the consumer protection Act 1986 wherein deficiencies of service has been defined as if any fault, imperfection short coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any Law for the time in force or has been under taken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service or not .and so the service as envisaged. So keeping the said definition of the Act in our view We vividly verified the pleading, and version and the Documents filed on their behalf by both the respective parties .
On perusal of the pleading and the documents filed by the complainant it has come to our notice that, the pleading it self is not clear as to when the loan was obtained by him,also from which date he was supposed to repay the same ,further more it does not reveal from the pass book of his Loan account in detail on the contrary it is very much clear from the statement of Loan Account of the complainant filed by the Opposite Party along with it’s version that the said loan amount was disbursed to him on Date 22.04.2003 and on his instruction 120 installments were fixed within which he was supposed to repay the total Loan amount and accordingly the same amount of Rs. 9500/-(Rupees nine thousand five hundred)only was being credited to his loan account by debiting the same from his SB account and also it has been clearly reflected in the said statement of the Opposite Party that the alleged excess amount of money deducted from his said SB account is not a fact rather it is seen from the statement that it has been deposited in cash as such in our view such allegation of the complainant is a false one. And so far as the the allegation of intermittent deduction for two time in a month in November 2012 & January 2013 it has been categorically explained by the Opposite Party in it’s version that the same was adjusted in course of time in his loan account and it is clear from the statement of the said Loan account submitted by the Opposite Party that no excess amount beyond the Loan amount has been appropriated from the complainant till the final repayment of the entire loan amount. And also it is clear from the agreement entered by both the parties that such an arrangement of repayment of Loan amount was facilitate to the complainant for his convenience. And to counter the same there is no any sort of rebuttal evidence has been adduced from the side of the Complainant. more over the pleading and the documents filed by the complainant does not reveal any steps to have taken by him instantly to rectify the same.
Hence in our considerate view the act alleged to have taken by the Opposite Party does not amount to deficiencies of service or unfair trade practice and as such the complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of any merit.
O R D E R .
Hence in the result the case is dismissed with out any cost.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t. I agree,
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
. M e m b e r.
