Karnataka

StateCommission

A/937/2016

Jayaram - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of Mysore - Opp.Party(s)

Rupesh Kumar S

22 Aug 2024

ORDER

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE.
 
First Appeal No. A/937/2016
( Date of Filing : 13 Apr 2016 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 14/01/2016 in Case No. CC/1217/2014 of District Mysore)
 
1. Jayaram
s/o late puttaiah aged about 55 years presently residing at #38 Nayakarabeedi Hinkal Mysuru.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. State Bank of Mysore
with its head office at P.B No.9727 No 646 Kempe gowda road Bengaluru - 560009
2. State Bank of Mysore
Yadavagiri Extension Branch 42/A Vasantha Mahal 1st Main Road Yadavagiri Mysuru.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 22 Aug 2024
Final Order / Judgement

22.08.2024:

ORDER

Delivered by Mr.K.B.Sangannanavar. Prl.DJ (R) Judicial Member.

 

01.   This is an Appeal filed by the complainant in C.C. No.1217/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mysore, aggrieved by the order dated: 14.01.2016.

 

 

02.   Commission examined the grounds of appeal, Impugned order, appeal papers and heard Learned counsel for Appellant. Now the point that arise for consideration of this commission would be whether the impugned order does call for an interference for the grounds set out in the appeal memo?

 

03.   Learned counsel for Appellant/complainant submits that, no documents are produced to substantiate Rs.3,203/- was the shortfall EMI amount due from complainant.  Further submits that, District Forum in Para-11 of the impugned order itself considered  the version statement of OP No.2, observed shortfall of initial EMI amount of Rs.50/- which totally amounting to Rs.3,000/- and interest amounting to Rs.3,203/- was intimated to the complainant, only after the lapse of five years suffice to hold District Forum had committed grave error in directing the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.3,095/- to the opposite party in a consumer complaint raised by the complainant against service provider namely bankers wherein sought relief to issue NOC has considerable force.  Learned counsel rightly submitted that, complainant/appellant being an employee having account with Ops getting monthly salary and the installment EMI of Rs.1,100/- each always automatically transferred from his account to the loan account continuously for a period of 61 months was not at all considered by the District Forum. 

04.   In the above such circumstances, we feel impugned order needs modification. Hence,  proceeds to allow the Appeal, consequently set aside the order dated: 14.01.2016 passed in C.C.No.1217/2014 on the file of District Forum and as a result directed the opposite parties to issue NOC to the complainant within 60 days, failing which to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as compensation.  Accordingly the Impugned order stands modified.

 

05. Send copy of this order to the District Commission and the parties to the Appeal.

            Sd/-                                                              Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

KNMP*

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.