By Smt. Bindu. R, President:
This Consumer Case is filed by Anil Kumar. V.M, S/o. Sudhakaran, Velliyarambath House, Anjukunnu (P.O), Panamaram, Cherukattoor Village,
Mananthavady Taluk, Wayanad District alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of Opposite Parties namely (1) State Bank of India, Panamaram Branch, Rep by Branch Manager (2) State Bank of India, Mananthavady Main Branch, Rep by Branch Manager.
2. A brief history of the complaint is that the Complainant is an agriculturist and had availed a loan for Rs.6,00,000/- in his name and another loan for Rs.3,25,000/- in the name of his sister Sobhana and another agriculture loan for Rs.3,00,000/- from the 2nd Opposite Party by mortgaging the property of Smt. Sobhana. Since there was default in repayment, 2nd Opposite Party initiated revenue recovery proceedings against Sobhana. The Complainant states that the Complainant and his sister approached the District Collector requesting for time to repay the loan which was granted by the District Collector. The Complainant further states that he had lost all his domestic birds and animals in the flood and in order to restart the agriculture again availed a loan from the chitty run by KSFE. Thus the Complainant availed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from KSFE which was deposited in the 1st Opposite Party bank and an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was accounted towards the chitty and availed an amount of Rs. 25,000/- for agricultural purposes and retained Rs.2,75,000/- in the account of the Complainant maintained by the 1st Opposite Party bank.
3. Thereafter an amount of Rs.1,66,000/- was withdrawn by the Complainant for purchasing food etc for his domestic animals and for agriculture needs. Subsequently when the Complainant approached the 1st Opposite Party bank for withdrawing the balance amount from his deposit, it was learnt that there was no money in the bank and on enquiry understood that the deposit was transferred by the 1st Opposite Party bank into the defaulted loan account of the Complainant in the 2nd Opposite Party bank.
4. Complainant therefore alleges that the said act of Opposite Parties are without the consent of the Complainant and the transfer of deposit of the Complainant by the 1st Opposite Party bank into the default account of the Complainant in the 2nd Opposite Party bank amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service from the side of the Opposite Parties. Aggrieved by the above action of the Opposite Parties the Complainant approached the Commission seeking for getting relief of returning the transferred amount and to allow a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony and hardship sustained to the Complainant and the cost of the proceedings.
5. Upon notice from the Commission the Opposite Parties appeared before the Commission and filed their joint version, stating that the Complainant had availed an agricultural loan for Rs.5,00,000/- on 06.01.2017 from the Opposite Parties. As per the terms and conditions of the loan the Complainant is bound to repay the amount with interest within one year. But the Complainant had defaulted the repayment and thus the account has became Non Performing Account (NPA) on 05.01.2019. Subsequently the bank had initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the Complainant.
6. While so, the 2nd Opposite Party noticed that the Complainant is maintaining a saving bank account with Anjukunnu Branch of the bank where there is a balance of Rs.1,06,494.39 in the said account. The 2nd Opposite Party has, therefore, exercising the right of set off, adjusted/appropriated the amount of Rs. 1,06,494.39 from the said savings bank account into the loan account of the Complainant towards part recovery of the amount due in the loan account. This was duly intimated to the Complainant as per notice dated 04.03.2020, the copy of which is produced. The said adjustment/ appropriation is legally in order and the same does not amount to any deficiency or unfair trade practice. The Opposite Party has also cited the decision in CPR(3) 64 SCDRC, Karnataka Saraswathy V and another Vs. ANZ Grindlays bank to substantiate their arguments. The steps taken by the bank is not against the order of the District Collector which is only an order against the revenue recovery proceedings. The order does not bar the bank from exercising the legal right of set off and adjusting /appropriating the amounts.
7. The Complainant has not turned up to give evidence or to conduct the case and the counsel reported “No instructions” from the Complainant and therefore notice was issued to the Complainant to appear before the Commission by registered post but the notice was returned by postal authorities with endorsement “insufficient address”.
8. The Opposite Party filed Exts.B1 to B11 and under the circumstances mentioned above the complaint is to be decided on merit and therefore the following points are analized by the Commission.
- Whether the Complainant has proved any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties?
- If so the quantum of compensation and costs to be awarded to the Complainant.
9. The Commission had made a thorough verification into the contents of the
complaint and had examined the contentions in the version and the documents produced from the side of the Opposite Party.
10. No evidence is adduced from the side of the Complainant and no documents are seen produced to substantiate the deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties and the Complainant had not conducted the case. On other hand the Opposite Party had produced Exts.B1 to B11 series to substantiate their contentions.
11. More over it is in evidence that the State Bank of India, the successor of the State Bank of Travancore filed OS 57/21 against the Complainant and his sister Shobana for recovery of money due to the bank in which also the counsel appeared on behalf of the defendants in the suit reported “no instructions” after filing written statement and the case was decreed exparte in favour of the bank which is evidenced by Ext.B11 series.
12. Considering the entire aspects in detail, the Commission finds that there is no merit in the complaint and point No.1 is found against the Complainant. Since point No.1 is found against the Complainant we do not have considered point No.2.
13. In the result the complaint is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) for unnecessary dragging the Opposite Parties to the Commission.
Hence Consumer case dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 20th day of February 2024.
Date of filing:10.03.2020.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:
Nil.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
OPW1. Vishnu Prasad. D Banking Professional
Exhibits for the Complainant:
Nil.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:
B1. Copy of Loan Application. dt:20.08.2016.
B2. Copy of Letter of Agreement. dt:31.08.2016.
B3. Copy of Agreement. dt:31.08.2016.
B4. Copy of Letter. dt:06.03.2014.
B5. Coy of Memorandum of Extension
of Equitable Mortgage dt:31.08.2016.
B6. Copy of Loan Application. dt:02.01.2017.
B7. Copy of Letter of Agreement. dt:06.01.2017.
B8. Copy of Agreement. dt:06.01.2017.
B9. Copy of Deed of Guarantee. dt:06.01.2017.
B10. Coy of Memorandum of Extension
of Equitable Mortgage dt:07.01.2017.
B11Series. Copy of Judgment and Decree in OS 57/2021.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
