Versus
Branch Manager, SBI New Grain Market, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana-141401. ....Opposite party
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM:
SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER
MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. Naveen Thamman, Advocate.
For OP : Exparte.
ORDER
PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
1. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the father of the complainant namely Sh. Krishan Lal was a retired employee of Municipal Corporation, Khanna and was drawing pension from Municipal Corporation, Khanna. He was having savings account No.30881443627 with opposite party bank in which his pension was credited. The complainant further stated that his father took a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite party and debited the monthly installment of loan of Rs.4500/- per month directly from the account of father of the complainant. At the time of giving loan to the father of the complainant, the opposite party taken so many signatures of the complainant on various papers without disclosing the contents as the complainant is also doing service in PSPCL Department and on asking, the employee of the bank told that the bank is only taking the signatures of the complainant as a witness. The opposite party bank given the loan to the father of the complainant on the basis of his pension slip as father of the complainant was drawing pension of Rs.17,000/- per month approximately. The opposite party bank deducted the amount from the account of father of the complainant up to October 2021. Unfortunately, father of the complainant died on 25.09.2021. The complainant further submitted that there are guidelines of Reserve Bank of India and the higher authority of the bank to get insure the loan taken by every loanee from the bank and at the time of giving the loan on 20.06.2019, the employee of the bank stated that there will a life insurance of the father of the complainant of Rs.2,00,000/- started from 20.06.2019. After the death of his father, the complainant was telephonically called by employee of the bank to deposit the installment to which the complainant told that his father died on 25.09.2021 and as the bank deducted the amount of the insurance on the loan amount but the opposite party bank threatened the complainant to deposit the amount otherwise to face dire consequences. The officials further told that there is no insurance of father of the complainant o the loan amount and the complainant was astonished to listen the same. Thus, the opposite party has violated the rules and regulations of RBI given from time to time to the financial institutions and the opposite party has provided insufficient services and has been continuously violating the norms, rules and regulations of RBI. Moreover, father of the complainant neither left any movable or immovable property nor the complainant inherited the same. The complainant submitted that he has also taken a loan from the opposite party bank and has been regularly paying the loan installments every month and the opposite party has also did the life insurance of the complainant at the time of taking the loan but the opposite party gave false information regarding the insurance of father of the complainant on the loan amount. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 01.02.2022 upon the opposite party through his counsel but no reply was received. Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has prayed that the bank has no right to recover any amount from the loan account of his father.
2. Notice was sent to the opposite party through registered post on 18.06.2022 but none turned up on behalf of the opposite party and as such, the opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.09.2022.
3. In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the legal notice dated 01.02.2022, Ex. C2 is the copy of postal receipt and closed the evidence.
4. The grievance raised by the complainant in the present complaint with regard to the recovery of the loan amount raised by his father namely Sh. Krishan Lal during his life time. Unfortunately, father of the complainant expired on 25.09.2021. During his life time he took a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite party and an amount of Rs.4500/- was being deducted as EMIs from his pension account maintainable at the opposite party bank. The complainant in his complaint as made a passing reference with regard to guidelines purportedly issued by the Reserve bank of India. In order to prove his case, the complainant was required to lead documentary evidence to prove that the deceased Krishan Lal raised a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- or the EMI of the same was being debited from his pension account. The complainant has not placed any loan documents, mandate issued by the deceased in favour of the bank, copy of pension account or guidelines of Reserve Bank of India which was being violated by the opposite party. The complainant has not even placed the death certificate of his father. Loan has raised way back on 20.06.2019. The complainant has also leveled allegations against the employees of the bank at the time of sanctioning of loan but no names of the employees of the opposite party bank have been divulged. As such, the complainant has failed to discharge his initial burden of proving deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
5. In this regard, reference can be made to SGS India Ltd. Vs Dolphin International Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009 decided on 06.10.2021 (LL 2021 SC 544) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India whereby it has been held as under:-
’19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.
In the above cited case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has placed reliance on its own judgment reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. whereby it has been held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. “6. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent.”
‘20. This Court in a Judgment reported as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. (LL 2021 SC 544) held the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party was primarily on the complaint. This Court held as under:-
“28. In our opinion, the approach of the Consumer Fora is in complete disregard of the principles of pleadings and burden of proof. First, the material facts constituting deficiency in service are blissfully absent in the complaint as filed. Second, the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the ground staff of the Airlines at the airport after issuing boarding passes was primarily on the respondents. That has not been discharged by them. The Consumer Fora, however, went on to unjustly shift the onus on the appellants because of their failure to produce any evidence. In law, the burden of proof would shift on the appellants only after the respondents/complainants had discharged their initial burden in establishing the factum of deficiency in service.”
In the given facts and circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party by any cogent and convincing evidence.
6. As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
7. Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.
(Monika Bhagat) (Jaswinder Singh) (Sanjeev Batra) Member Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:16.02.2023.
Gobind Ram.
Sumir Kumar Vs Branch Manager, SBI CC/22/237
Present: Sh. Naveen Thamman, Advocate for complainant.
OP exparte.
Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Monika Bhagat) (Jaswinder Singh) (Sanjeev Batra) Member Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:16.02.2023.
Gobind Ram.
