Punjab

Sangrur

CC/442/2016

Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Parul Chawla

03 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                              

                                                Complaint No.  442

                                                Instituted on:    06.07.2016

                                                Decided on:       03.11.2016

 

Suresh Kumar son of Telu Ram, resident of Care of Ganpati Garments, Railway Road, Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch, Sunam, through its Chief Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Parul Chawla, Adv.

For OP                     :       Shri Ajay Bansal, Adv.

       

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Suresh Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that  the complainant availed the services of the OP by obtaining house loan and car loan along with Ankush Grg and Minkush Garg, of which he deposited the instalments regularly with the OP.  Further case of the complainant is that the complainant obtained two house loans vide account number 65001958946 and 65033668954 and one car loan vide account number 65048804561, however, it is stated that there is no dispute regarding the car loan and one house loan bearing account number 65033668954 and the same have been closed now.

 

2.             The complainant has further stated in the complaint that he deposited Rs.18000/- plus Rs.18000/- i.e. total Rs.36,000/- in his house loan account number 65033668954 and Rs.18,000/- in his house loan account number 65001958946 on 10.11.2014. But, the grievance of the complainant is that the amount of Rs.18,000/- so deposited in the loan account number 65001958946 has not been shown/counter for.  This fact was also brought to the notice of the Op, but despite that nothing was done.  The complainant also wrote letters dated 12.3.2016 and 2.4.2016, but of no effect.  The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the OP, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Op, the complainant has prayed that the Op be directed to reimburse an amount of Rs.18,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP, objection has been taken up that there were two house loan accounts in the joint names of the complainant namely Ankush Garg and Minkush Garg in the account books of the OP bearing numbers 65033668954 and 65001958946 each and on 10.11.2014 the complainant had filled two vouchers of Rs.18,000/- for depositing the amounts in both the above said house loan accounts with the OP, but inadvertently both the amounts of Rs.18000/- + Rs.18000/- total Rs.36,000/- credited by the Op in the loan account number 65033668954 instead of Rs.18000/- in account number 65033668954 , as such whole of the amount of Rs.36,000/- was credited in the above said loan account number 65033668954.    It is further stated that the house loan account number 65033668954 has been got closed by the complainant as Rs.18000/- which was to be credited in account number 65001958946 was inadvertently credited in account number 65033668954.  It has been totally denied that the complainant deposited Rs.18000/- plus Rs.18000/- on 10.11.2014 in the account number 650336688954.   It is further stated that at the time of deposit of any amount, the receipts are being issued to the deposited by the bank, but the complainant has not produced all the three receipts on record and the complainant has produced only one receipt.   The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of account statement, Ex.C-3 copy of amount deposited receipt, Ex.C-4 copy of account statement, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-11 copies of letters and Ex.C-12 copy of legal notice dated 25.6.2016 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Op has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-4 copies of amount deposit vouchers dated 10.11.2014 and closed evidence.

 
5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, written version of the opposite parties, evidence of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had obtained house loan and car loan facility from the Op.  

               

7.             In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that he deposited Rs.18,000/- on 10.11.2014 in his house loan account number 65001958946, but the same was not shown credited in the statement of the account, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-2.  Ex.C-3 is the copy of receipt showing deposit of Rs.18,000/- in the account number 65001958946.

 

8.             On the other hand, the stand of the Op is that there were two house loan accounts in the joint names of the complainant, namely. Ankush Garg and Minkush Garg in the account books of the OP bearing numbers 65033668954 and 65001958946 and on 10.11.2014 the complainant had filled two vouchers of Rs.18,000/- each for depositing the amounts in both the above said house loan accounts with the OP, but inadvertently both the amounts of Rs.18000/- + Rs.18000/- total Rs.36,000/- credited by the Op in the loan account number 65033668954 instead of Rs.18000/- in account number 65033668954, as such whole of the amount of Rs.36,000/- was credited in the above said loan account number 65033668954.    It is further contended that the house loan account number 65033668954 has been got closed by the complainant as Rs.18000/- which was to be credited in account number 65001958946 was inadvertently credited in account number 65033668954.  It has been totally denied by the OP that the complainant deposited Rs.18000/- plus Rs.18000/- on 10.11.2014 in the account number 650336688954.  It is worth mentioning here that if the complainant had to deposit Rs.36,000/- in the account number 65033668954, then he would have deposited the amount in a single voucher and had not filled up two vouchers for Rs.18,000/- each.   Further the learned counsel for the Op has drawn our attention towards the photostat copies of the vouchers Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3 dated 10 November 2014, whereby the complainant deposited Rs.18,000/- each in account number 65001958946 and 65033668954 meaning thereby the total amount of Rs.36,000/- was entered wrongly by the Op in account number  65033668954, whereas the amount of Rs.18,000/- should have been credited in the account number 65001958946.  It is further worth mentioning here that the complainant has not produced on record the copies of counter foil of vouchers dated 10.11.2014 of account number 65033668954 showing the deposit of the amount of Rs.36,000/- against two vouchers.   There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not produce on record the copies of the counter foil of deposit of the amount of Rs.18,000/- + Rs.18,000/- in the account number 65033668954.  Since both the accounts were in the name of Suresh Kumar, then there are chances of inadvertence on the part of the OP by entering both the vouchers in one account bearing number 65033668954, more so when the same have also been proved by the OP by producing on record the copies of vouchers Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3 and further this fact is also supported by the affidavit of Shri Brinderjit Kohli, Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala Sunam, which is on record Ex.OP-1.   In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the Op has successfully proved on record by producing cogent and reliable evidence that the complainant had deposited Rs.18,000/- plus Rs.18,000/- on 10.11.2014 which has been credited in the account number 65033668954 and further the same has been counted for.  As such, we feel that the complainant cannot get the credit of Rs.18,000/- again as discussed above.  

 

9.             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.

                November 3, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member