Punjab

Sangrur

CC/525/2017

Sukhchain Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India)Previously State bank of Patiala) - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Jarnail Singh Gogi

05 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    525

                                                Instituted on:      06.10.2017

                                                Decided on:       05.02.2018

 

Sukhchain Singh son of Arjun Singh, resident of Saho Patti, Balran, Tehsil Moonak, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.             State Bank of India (Previously State Bank of Patiala Branch) Branch Lehal Kalan, Tehsil Moonak, Distt. Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.             State Bank of India (Previously State Bank of Patiala) The Mall Road, Patiala through its Chief Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Jarnail Singh Gogi, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri Anil Aggarwal, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Sukhchain Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is having an account bearing number 65129589042 with the OP bank, which was closed on 8.5.2017. Further case of the complainant is that he took the loan of Rs.45,000/- from the OP on 9.12.2011 for purchasing buffaloes and the same was to be returned along with interest in five year instalments of Rs.850/- each.  The case of the complainant is that though he has deposited an amount of Rs.70,255/- with the OPs on various dates till 8.5.2017, but the OPs have got deposited an amount of Rs.29,705/- in excess as the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 10.1.2012, but the OP credited only an amount of Rs.1000/-.  The complainant has further averred that though he requested the Ops to refund to the complainant the excess amount so recovered from the complainant, but nothing happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.29,705/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous and has been filed by concealing true facts, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and that the complaint is time barred and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant took a loan of Rs.45,000/- from the OP for purchase of buffalo in the month of December, 2011 which was to be repaid in 60 monthly instalments of Rs.1035/- each and the loan was also assisted by subsidy of Rs.10,000/- which has already been adjusted in the account as per the rules.  It has been denied that the complainant has deposited any excess amount with the OPs and further it is denied that the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- on 10.1.2012 rather the complainant deposited only an amount of Rs.1000/- which was credited in his account.  The complainant has altered the counter slip by adding one zero on it making the amount of Rs.1000/- as Rs.10,000/-.  The account statement of the loan account of the complainant clearly shows that the complainant failed to deposit the instalments on regular monthly basis.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had obtained a loan of Rs.45,000/- on 9.12.2011 for purchase of a buffalo, which was to be returned along with interest in sixty instalments to the OPs. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have recovered excess amount than the actual one.  After perusal of the whole case file and hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that there are three questions which arises for determination before this Forum i.e. i) whether the OPs have charged any amount in excess and ii) whether the OPs have deposited an amount of Rs.1000/- in the account of the complainant on 10.1.2012 instead of Rs.10,000/- and iii)whether the OPs have credited the amount of subsidy in the account of the complainant.

 

6.             We have perused the statement of account in respect of the complainant Ex.OP-7 and Ex.OP-8 and found nothing wrong on the part of the OPs and the amount so deposited by the complainant has been shown deposited in the account of the complainant.   We have also perused the copy of statement Ex.OP-7  which further clearly shows that on 10.1.2012 the complainant has deposited only an amount of Rs.1000/- and not an amount of Rs.10,000/-, as is evident from the copy of voucher Ex.OP-4, which clearly shows that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1000/- only and the amount has also been written in words “One thousand only” and the said voucher is duly signed by the complainant himself in Punjabi.  We have also perused the counter portion Ex.C-3, but it does not contain any such wording that the complainant deposited ‘Rupees ten thousand only’ and the figure written by the cashier seems to be added one by a zero by the complainant only to file the present complaint.   Moreover, the complainant took the loan in the month of December 2011, then the question of deposit of the amount of Rs.10,000/- in the next month does not arise.   Now, coming to the point of non deposit of the subsidy of Rs.10,000/- by the OPs in the account of the complainant, we feel that the complainant has not checked his own account, as a bare perusal of the statement of account Ex.OP-7 clearly reveals that the amount of subsidy of Rs.10,000/- was credited by way of ‘deposit transfer’ on 5.12.2014 in the account of the complainant by the OPs.  In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case of any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

7.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        February 5, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member