Punjab

Sangrur

CC/581/2014

Surinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

Shri P.K. Gupta

01 Apr 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                      

                                                          Complaint no. 581                                                                                      

                                                           Instituted on    07.10.2014

                                                          Decided on      01.04.2015

 

Surinder Kumar aged about 55 years son of Sh. Mohan Lal, resident of C/o Gurjinder Singh Hawaldar Street No.11, Punia Colony, Sangrur.     

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

1.     State Bank of Patiala, Branch Duggan, through its Branch Manager, Village Duggan, Tehsil and District Sangrur.  

2.     State Bank of Patiala (Head Office) The Mall, District Patiala through its General Manager/ Chief Manager.

      ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT :             Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES    :   Shri Sat Paul Sharma,  Advocate                     

 

 

Quorum

                   

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                    K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                                   

 

ORDER    

 

K.C.Sharma, Member

 

1.             Surinder Kumar, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he is  having a loan account bearing number 65004003640 with the OPs as he has obtained a loan from them. The OP No.1 supplied a copy of the account statement to the complainant on 06.11.2012 in which the outstanding balance towards the complainant was Rs.59,303.65/-. On  14.07.2014 the complainant filed an application to the OPs to know the present status of his loan account and also requested to the OPs to provide him all the credit and debit details of his account but no information was provided  to the complainant till date. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs - 

i)      OPs be directed to disclose the due amount pending towards the complainant,

ii )    OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and  Rs.10000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OPs, legal objections on the grounds of  maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction and suppression of material facts have been taken up. On merits, it is submitted that OP No.1 sanctioned a personal loan to the complainant. It is denied that the complainant has deposited the installments as per terms and conditions of loan agreement. The complainant has failed to deposit the installments in time, so the loan account of the complainant declared as NPA account on 13.12.2010.  The OP No.1  supplied the copy of statement account upto 6.11.2012 of Rs.59303.65 without calculating the interest ( excluding  the accrued interest and penalty).  Now,  the amount of Rs.1,32,884/- is outstanding towards the complainant alongwith interest @ 12.75% P.A. up to 15.01.2015. It is evident from the averments in the complaint that the complainant is seeking voluminous and number of entries to be examined from 08.12.2005 onwards till the end of his last deposit regarding his loan account which would require recording of voluminous evidence of numerous  transactions, so having regard to this fact, there cannot be a satisfactory adjudication of issues in time bound proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The demand made by the complainant is baseless, misconceived and wrong qua against the OPs. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.   

 

3.             In support of his case the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed evidence.  On the other hand OPs have tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex. OP-4  and closed evidence.

4.             It is an admitted fact on record that the  complainant  had obtained a personal loan from the OPs and OP no.1 had issued statement of account upto 06.11.2012 of Rs.59,303.65. The complainant’s only grievance is that he had moved an application dated 22.02.2014 through registered post to the OPs for obtaining statement of his loan account number 65004003640 but no statement of account has been provided by the OPs till date.  Copy of the said application on record is Ex.C-5 and its postal receipt is Ex.C-6.  It is  not the case of the OPs that  they had supplied the demanded statement of account to the complainant rather in their reply to the complaint they have mentioned that “complainant is seeking voluminous and number of entries to be examined from 08.12.2005 onwards till the end of his last deposit regarding his loan account which would require recording of voluminous evidence of numerous  transactions, so having regard to this fact, there cannot be a satisfactory adjudication of issues in time bound proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986”.  It means that the OPs themselves have admitted that they have not provided the said account statement to the complainant. Further, the complainant had also sent a legal notice  dated 16.07.2014 through registered post to the OPs in which same statement of account was demanded by him but OPs did not give reply to the said legal notice nor supplied the demanded statement of account.   

5.             Astonishingly, during the pendency of the present complaint at the time of producing their evidence, the OPs have produced Ex.OP-4 which is statement of account of complainant’s loan account for the period from 08.12.2005 top 29.12.2014. This act of the OPs shows that they have taken two contradictory stands in their defence which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Learned counsel for the OPs has also cited a ruling of the Hon’ble National Commission namely Omega Packaging Pvt. Limited Vs. Central Bank of India and others, I (1995) CPJ 1 (NC). We have thoroughly gone through the same and found that same relates to the charging of excess interest on credits but in the instant case the position is entirely different because in the present case the complainant has sought copy of statement of his loan account from the OPs. As such the abovementioned ruling is not applicable to the present case.      

6.             So, in view of the facts stated above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and found that the OPs are deficient in service and the complainant in order to get his statement of account had to file the present complaint and accordingly we order the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- being the consolidated amount of compensation on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.

                Announced.

April 1, 2015.

 

 

 

( Sarita Garg)        ( K.C.Sharma)       ( Sukhpal Singh Gill)           

Member                Member                    President

 

 

BBS/-