Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/58/2018

Satnarayan Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

State bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

DKS Panesar

07 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.       :         58 of 2018

Date of Institution                             :         23.10.2018

Date of Decision                     :         07.02.2019

Satnarayan Das aged 51 years S/o Naurata Ram R/o Near Bank of Baroda, Mukandpur Road, Banga, District SBS Nagar.                                                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1. State Bank of India, Branch Railway Road, Banga, through its Chief Manager.
2. State Bank of India (Regional Office), SCO 99-107, Sector 8 – C, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager.

          …Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:

For complainant            :         Sh.D.K.S. Panesar, Advocate

For OPs                         :         Sh.Nobel Sareen, Advocate

ORDER

PER SH. KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1.   Complainant filed present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by alleging that complainant is holder of Crop Loan Limited to the tune of Rs.1,94,000/- against gold sanctioned by OP-1 bearing account No.33125395492.  The limit amount was sanctioned with interest @ 4% P.A. payable by complainant.  The complainant has been regularly complying with the loan terms and conditions from time to time and he is not a defaulter.  It is to surprise and dismay of complainant that a sum of Rs.19,301.67/- was debited in loan account of complainant on 14.12.2017 on excuse that he was not eligible for the scheme, which is totally wrong.  The loan scheme was sanctioned by concerned bank after complying with all the formalities, rules and instructions issued by Bank authorities.  Had the complainant not been eligible for the loan facility, no such loan limit could have been sanctioned in his favour.  Even otherwise also, fault if any, lies with bank authorities and on that account the complainant cannot be suffered.  No such amount could have been debited by OP-1 on their own without getting instructions from the complainant.  No notice was issued to complainant before debiting the amount.  This act of Ops amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Lastly, it has been prayed that an award of Rs.19301.61/- i.e. wrongly debited amount with interest 18% P.A. as well as compensation for Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses be granted to complainant.
2. Upon notice, OPs had failed to appear and ultimately, the OPs were proceeded  against ex parte vide order dated 03.12.2018.  Thereafter, case was fixed for arguments and on application of OPs, the OPs were allowed vide order dated 10.01.2019 to join the proceedings at that stage only to advance arguments.
3. To prove the case, counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, alongwith copy of statement of account Ex.C-1, copy of legal notice dated 15.09.2018 Ex.C-2, postal receipts Ex.C-3, Ex.C-4 and close the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the record carefully.
5. During arguments the contentions of learned counsel for complainant are similar to the pleadings, so no need to reiterate the same. Sanction of loan to complainant not in dispute.  There is only dispute regarding debit of Rs.19,301.67 on 14.12.2017 the ground that complainant is not eligible for scheme and this amount was deducted without intimation or consent of complainant. Counsel for OPs argued that complainant raised loan of Rs.1,94,000/- against security of Gold sanctioned by OP-1 and denied that it was crop loan/limit, but same was non-agriculture loan against security of Gold.  It is also argued that in loan documents rate of interest clearly mentioned as 2% margin above the base rate which is presently 9.75% P.A. and presently effective rate being 11.75% P.A. with half yearly rest.  It is further argued that due to error in the system, in statement of account loan was mentioned as gold loan for agriculture purpose instead of gold loan only.  Due to error in system, the system was charging wrong rate of interest from the complainant, which was later on came to the knowledge of the bank and was rectified on 14.12.2017. An amount of Rs.19,301.67 was debited to the account of complainant, which was shortly charged from him to which the bank is legally entitled.  OP has not charged anything above the agreed rate of interest from complainant.  It is also argued and submitted in written arguments that complainant has deposited the entire amount of loan alongwith interest to OP, without any objection. 
6. It is transpired from statement of account Ex.C-1 that loan amount of Rs.1,94,000/- was transferred by OPs to complainant on 12.04.2016 but the Ops have filed documents which pertain to year 2013 and seems that the said documents prepared before the said loan.  Moreover, it is also admitted by OPs that due to error in the system of bank, it charged the amount in dispute i.e. Rs.19301.67 on 14.12.2017.  Further, counsel for OPs admitted that complainant has deposited entire amount of loan alongwith interest. Charging of amount of Rs.19301.67 from complainant due to error in the system as admitted by the OP amounts to deficiency in service causing mental tension and agony to the complainant.    
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the present complaint partly allowed and the OPs are directed to refund Rs.19301.67 to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of debited from account of complainant till realization and also directed to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. The OPs have no right to keep and misappropriate the public money.  It must go back to the public.  We, therefore, order that the OPs will deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/-, the estimate rough amount, with the legal aid account of this Forum.  
8. However, the OP bank would be at liberty to recover the amount of compensation and litigation costs from the erring official after affixing his liability as per their rules and regulations.
9. Entire compliance of above said be made by Ops within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.         
10. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.
11. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Dated:  07.02.2019

 

  

(Kanwaljeet Singh)       (Kuljit Singh)

Member                         President