BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.186/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 27^th APRIL 2018

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT  

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri. Devakumar,M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in  service and seeking a direction to refund the total sum of Rs.46,200/-, deducted from his Bank account without his consent, along with interest at 24% from the date of deduction to till the date of realisation and damages of Rs.86,000/- for the mental agony and hardship suffered and Rs.60,000/- compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings with such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant stood as guarantor, to the loan amount of Rs.1,66,000/- borrowed by opposite party No.2 from opposite party No.1 executed the necessary documents in favour of opposite party No.1.  The O.P.2 become a defaulter, as such, the o.p.1 deducted a total sum of Rs.24,000/- between 08.07.2013 to 07.06.2014 and Rs.22,200/- on 22.03.2015, as one time settlement, in all a sum of Rs.46,200/- deducted from the account of the complainant. No notice was caused with respect to deduction of the amount.  The requests made to O.P.1 not to deduct any amount from his account, went in vain.   A notice caused on 02.06.2017, calling upon to deduct the amount from O.P.2 account, since he has availed voluntary.
3.     The O.P.1 filing version denied the allegations and submits they were not aware of the relationship between the complainant and the O.P.2, but admits both of them as their customers.  The allegation of, complainant’s illiteracy and innocence, the O.P.1 Officer obtained signature on blank papers, to extend loan to O.P.2 is denied as false.  Since O.P.2 was not able to repay owing to his ill health, based on the authorisation letter executed in favour of O.P.1, the amount has been deducted towards clearance of the loan availed by O.P.2 and the same was communicated instantly and assisted to clear the liability.  O.P.1 made an offer under OTS to adjust a sum of Rs.22,200/- and was deducted vide consent letter dt.24.03.2015 and closed the loan account.  The complainant instead of recovering the amount paid by him towards clearance of O.P.2’s loan amount, filed this complaint with frivolous allegations.  Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4.      O.P.2 represented through his counsel, not filed his version and not lead evidence.
5.      The complainant and O.P.1 led evidence by filing Affidavit and relied on several records to establish their contentions.  Written arguments filed and heard the respective counsels.  Perused the material on record and posted for orders.

6.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service by the opposite party No.1, for deduction of amount from his bank account towards clearance of loan amount borrowed by O.P.2 and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2. What Order?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :-  In the negative

Point No.2:- As per final order

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:- The complainant and O.P.2 were the customer of O.P.1 Bank.  It is alleged that, on 23.02.2011, when he visited the Bank to enquire about his transaction an officer of O.P.1 Bank had obtained his signature on blank formats and papers and deducted a total sum of Rs.24,000/- between 08.07.2013 to 07.06.2014, towards loan amount borrowed by O.P.2, as he was not able to repay the loan amount borrowed from O.P.1.  Later by threatening, a sum of Rs.22,200/- has been deducted from his account towards clearance of loan due amount under O.T.S.  Though there was sufficient balance amount available with  O.P.2 account, the O.P.1 deducted amount from complainant’s Account has been alleged as deficiency in service and hence sought for the reliefs.
9. The O.P.1 contended that, the complainant stood as guarantor to the loan amount borrowed by O.P.2 and executed the Guarantee agreement on 16.01.2009, standing instruction dt.16.01.2009, authorising the opposite party No.1 to debit amount from his account to adjust the same towards loan account borrowed by O.P.2 and also the OTS intimation dt.24.03.2015.  Further, the O.P.1 furnished the loan agreement executed on 19.02.2011 and letter of sanction, in support of their contention.  As such, contended that, they have not committed any deficiency in service and not liable to pay any compensation and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
10. On perusal of the pleadings,  and the evidence and the documents available on record, it is true that, the complainant stood as guarantor to the loan amount borrowed by O.P.2 from O.P.1, and executed necessary documents, authorising the O.P.1 Bank to debit the amount from his account towards adjustment of loan amount borrowed by O.P.2.  Accordingly the O.P.1 Bank debited amount from complainant’s Account.  Further, the letter dt.24.03.2015 by the complainant confirms that, he had agreed to clear the balance loan amount under OTS.  In support of the same only, the O.P.1 deducted Rs.22,200/- from complainant’s account.  Thereby the allegation of deduction of amount from complainant’s account towards clearance of balance loan amount of O.P.2 can not be attributed as deficiency in service committed by O.P.1 and hence, the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs as sought.  Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the negative.
11. Point No.2:- In view of the discussions in point No.1, we proceed to pass the following order:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 27^th April 2018)