Date of Filing: 20/09/2011
Date of Order: 23/11/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.Sc.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1733 OF 2011
Shri. Siddaraju.B,
S/o.Basavaraju.V,
Aged About 36 years,
R/at: No.38, II Cross,
Shankarappa Layout,
5th Block, Rajarajeshwari Nagar,
Bangalore-560 098.
(Rep. by Sri.Babu Pattar, Advocate) …. Complainant.
V/s
1. The Chief Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Frazer Town Branch,
Office at No.23, Saundars Road,
Bangalore0560 005.
2. The General Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Regional Office,
Jayanagar Branch, Bangalore.
3. The General Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Head Office,
Manipal, Mangalore.
(Rep. by Sri.B.M.Baliga, Advocate) …. Opposite Parties.
BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
-: ORDER:-
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the third Opposite Parties to pay Rs.1,38,300/-, are necessary:-
The complainant had availed a home loan to purchase certain property from, the opposite party, on 28.04.2007, in a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. After lapse of one year when the complainant took the loan statement he found that Rs.20,90,000/- was debited to his account though he has not received Rs.90,000/-. He approached the manager of the opposite party No.1, no explanation was received. The rate of interest was 9.25%, but the opposite parties have imposed the interest at the rate of 14% per annum. The opposite party on 21.04.2011 (must by 01.09.2008) has written to the complainant alleging that his income tax returns is not proper and asked him to close the loan account, which has been foreclosed. Hence the opposite parties are liable to return Rs.90,000/- with interest. Hence the complaint.
2. In brief the version of opposite parties are:-
Obtaining of loan by the complainant is admitted. It is also admitted that along with Rs.20,00,000/- the sum of Rs.90,000/- was also debited to the loan account on 02.05.2007. On 01.09.2008 the complainant was informed about his false income tax returns furnished to the opposite party which was unearthed by the officers of the opposite party who went to the income tax department obtained the income tax returns of the complainant and his brother-in-law Sri.B.Ravi Kumar who was surety and found that the complainant and his brother-in-law had furnished false statements to opposite party. Hence the complainant was asked to close the loan account. On 17.02.2011 the complainant sought concession for closing the loan account by one time settlement it was considered and accepted and loan was closed on 21.04.2011. The notice issued was sent to the head office. The complainant was introduced to the Bank by N.Venkatesh and at the request of the complainant who colluded with N.Venkatesh the then manager namely Bhagawan Mistry Rs.90,000/- was paid to N.Venkatesh on behalf of the complainant. The said manager Bhagawan Mistry committed several criminal breach of trust and was convicted in C.C. No.134/2010 by the appropriate court. Hence this complaint is filed after lapse of four years and it is barred by time. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the opposite party has filed their affidavit. The complainant did not turn up. Hence arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
:- POINTS:-
- Whether the compliant is barred by time?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service?
- What Order?
5. Our findings are:-
Point (A) to (C): As per the final Order
for the following:-
-:REASONS:-
Point A to C:-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavit filed by the opposite party and documents of both the parties on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had obtained an housing loan of Rs.20,00,000/- from the opposite party and the amount was disbursed to him on 28.04.2007 and an additional sum of Rs.90,000/- was also disbursed to Sri.N.Venkatesh from the account of the complainant as he has introduced the complainant. According to the complainant the debiting of this Rs.90,000/- is an illegal entry and he is not liable for payment of this amount with interest which has been recovered from him. The complainant at Para-4 of the compliant has stated thus:-
“Further complainant respectfully submits that after lapse of 1 year he has taken the statement of Account of loan vide statement No.04107200000412. After perusing statement of account issued by the opposite party, he came to know that the Loan amount was debited to the complainant account of Rs.20,90,000/- instead of Rs.20,00,000/- and he was shocked and immediately approached to the Manager of the oppsiote party No.1 but the Manager of the opposite party has not responsed properly regarding sanctioned excess amount of Rs.90,000/- in his account, but the complainant has not at all received the amount and without his knowledge the opposite party No.1 sanctioned excess amount of Rs.90,000/- and also imposed interest at the rate of 13% on sanctioned excess amount of Rs.90,000/- including loan amount.”
That means he came to know of this excess debiting of Rs.90,000/- to his account a year after obtaining the loan that means he must have come to the knowledge of this excess debiting on or before 28.04.2008. Hence the compliant filed on 20.09.2011 is hopelessly barred by time as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party. When he had come to the knowledge of this excess debiting in the year 2008 as admitted by the complainant why he has kept quite beyond two years is not explained. Hence the compliant is barred by time.
7. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavit of the opposite party and documents of both the parties it is an admitted fact that on the application of the complainant and on copy of income tax returns of himself and surety his brother-in-law Sri.B.Ravikumar filed by him the opposite party has sanctioned certain housing loan to the complainant to an extent of Rs.20,00,000/- along with that Rs.90,000/- was added and his account as per opposite party that Rs.90,000/- was paid to the Introducer of the complainant to the opposite party Sri.N.Venkatesh and in this regard the complainant, Venkatesh and the previous manager Sri. Bhagawan Mistry coluded with each other and committed fraud. Further it has contended that the said Bhagawan Mistry has convicted by the competent court. Here the complainant is not charged for any fraud or criminal conspiracy with Bhagawan Mistry and N.Venkatesh. The Bhagawan Mistry has committed fraud, he has committed fraud that’s all. What is the charge against Bhagawan Mistry? What is the charge sheet? what is the evidence? what is the judgment? is not before the Forum. Hence no reliance on the said statement or said contention could be taken in to.
8. In any event it is an admitted fact that the amount of Rs.90,000/- said to have been paid to N.Venkatesh in the account of the complainant is not even sanctioned to the complainant as loan but the amount has been debited to his account. It is admittedly it is not paid to the complainant.
9. Further it is seen that the complainant had furnished false or incorrect income tax returns not only of himself but also of his brother-in-law Ravikumar the surety to the opposite party. It is further seen that the opposite party has obtained the correct income tax returns filed by the complainant and Ravikumar to the income tax authorities for the relevant period and found that the complainant to boost his income had given copies of false income tax returns to the opposite party, but given correct one to income tax authorities and given false one to the opposite party and got the loan. The complainant has also given the false income tax returns of his brother-in-law Ravikumar the surety. It is also an admitted fact that on coming to know about the fraud committed by the complainant the opposite party cancelled the loan asked the complainant to pay back the entire loan amount in lumpsum. The complainant bargained with the opposite party to reduce the amount and ultimately paid certain amount and the loan account was closed and subsequently after the closure of the loan account he has filed this complaint. Hence it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service. The opposite party had informed the complainant what was the amount due as on the date of the onetime settlement and the complainant after bargaining with the opposite party has settled for a lesser amount and closed it. Even if this Rs.90,000/- was not paid to the complainant in 2007, but paid to somebody else this was also accounted. The complainant had taken that in to account and the opposite party had also considered that and taken a lesser amount from the complainant that means everything was taken in to account and the account was closed by receiving lesser amount from the complainant. Hence the complainant is estopped from contending that this amount of Rs.90,000/- which was not paid to him has to be repaid to him. When the complainant had sought for one time settlement of his loan account and settled the amount, he cannot turn round and contend that this Rs.90,000/- has to be repaid to him. At no point of time he has stated that this Rs.90,000/- was not taken in to account at the time of one time settlement.
10. Further it is seen that when the opposite party has issued notice to the complainant stating that the complainant had committed fraud in filing false income tax returns, to which the complainant got frightened, settled the matter with the opposite party and as a revenge he has come up with this case as rightly contended. Hence under these circumstances there is no deficiency in service. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Dismissed. No order as to costs.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 23rd Day of November 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
