BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MANGALORE
Dated this the 30th NOVEMBER 2015
COMPLAINT NO.261/2015
(Admitted on 14.08.2015)
PRESENT: 1. Smt. Asha Shetty, Hon’ble President
2. 2. Smt.Lavanya M. Rai, Hon’ble Member
BETWEEN:
Mr. Placid Saldana,
S/o Late Mr. P.F.X.Saldana,
Of age 63 years, Adult,
Roman Catholic,
R/at Fathima Garden,
Valencia, Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.Deenanatha Shetty)
VERSUS
The Authorised Signatory
And Branch Manager,
Corporation Bank,
Retail Hub, Mangalore.
K.R. Commercial Complex,
Bendoorwell, Kankanady,
Mangalore 575 002. ……. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Opposite Party : Ex Parte )
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY
I. 1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, wherein the complainant alleges deficiency in service as against the Opposite party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant had availed a loan for business from the opposite party i.e. a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupees Five lakhs only) against a landed property of extent 31.95 cents bearing R.S.No. 5 1A (in consonance with) RTC 51AP8 which is situated at Jeppinamogaru Village in Mangalore city corporation.
It is stated that, at the time of availing the afore stated loan from the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party had obtained from the complainant the valuation Report dated 04.12.2007 issued by Mr. S.N. Bhat a Consulting Engineer. That, the present market value of the said property being Rs. 1,30,00,000 (Rupees on crore thirty lakhs only). It is stated that, the said Valuation Report has been duly accepted by the bank in the year 2007 itself prior to the sanction of the aforesaid loan amount to the complainant. The Opposite Party had already collected the amount towards the process fee. It is stated that the movable property belonging to the complainant of worth Rs. 6,50,000 (Rupees Six lakh fifty thousand only) had also been properly assessed and submitted to the Opposite Party by the complainant.
The complainant stated that the Bank Manager never apprised as to the submission of Valuation Report once again after the elapse of 7 (seven) years. The Opposite Party never issued any prior intimation cum notice to the complainant in regard to the necessity of collecting the processing charges once again from the complainant.
It is stated that, the Bank has debited Rs. 2,810 towards the processing charges from the account maintained by the complainant. The Opposite Party not done the valuation in the presence of the complainant and has not also submitted a copy of the report of the said valuer on any point of time to the complainant. At the time of mortgaging the property, the Opposite Party had already collected the requisite amount towards the valuation charge and has also obtained the valuation report from the complainant. So the question of collecting again a sum to the tune of Rs. 6,000 (Rupees Six thousand only) from the complainant by debiting the said amount from his account by the Opposite Party bank is illegal and hence the above complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as the Act) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party a sum Rs. 3,190 along with interest and also pay cost of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the opposite party by R.P.A.D. In spite of receiving version notice neither appeared nor contested the case before this Fora, Hence we have proceeded ex-parte as against the opposite party. The acknowledgment marked as court Document No. 1.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
III. In support of the complaint, Sri. Placid Saldana (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex. C1 to C 9. Opposite Party ex parte.
We have considered the oral arguments submitted by the learned counsel and also considered the materials that was placed before the Forum and answer the points are as follows:-
Point No.(i): Negative.
Point No.(ii) to (iv): As per the final order.
Reasons
IV. Point No. (i) to (iv): In order to substantiate the averments made in the complaint the complainant filed affidavit supported by documents i.e. Ex C1 to C9. The material documents produced by the complainant shows that, the complainant had availed loan from the opposite party bank and submitted the valuation report dated 4.12.2007 issued by the consulting engineer.
Now the allegations of the complainant is that, the opposite party without the notice of the complainant debited Rs. 2,810 towards the proceeding charges. And also contended that, in the presence of the complainant the opposite party not conducted any valuation report once again. However, the reply of Mr. S.M. Bhat i.e. Ex C6 given by the opposite party bank shows that, they have deducted Rs. 2,810 towards the valuation report. But, no material evidence produced before the FORA, to substantiate the stand taken by the opposite party bank. However, it is the bounded duty of the opposite party bank to justify the deduction made by them.
It is on record that the opposite party bank in spite of receiving version notice not bothered to appear before this FORA nor contested the case till this date. It shows the sheer negligence on the part of the opposite party bank. However, opposite party bank not denied the allegations alleged in the complaint. The unrebutted evidence requires no further proof. Therefore we hold that, the deduction of Rs. 2,810/- done by the opposite party bank amounts to unfair trade practice.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the opposite party bank without the notice of the complainant deducted Rs. 2,810 from the account of the complainant which amounts to deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice. Therefore, the Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs. 2,810 and also pay Rs. 3,000 as damages for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and further pay Rs. 3,000 towards the cost of litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. Opposite Party shall credit Rs. 2,810 and also pay Rs. 3,000 as damages and Rs. 3,000/- towards the cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In case of failure to pay the above mentioned amount within the stipulated time, the Opposite Party is directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above said total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the party free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 6 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of November 2015.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Placid Saldana Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1: The copy of the Valuation Report dated 04.12.2007.
Ex C2: The copy of the communication of M/s. Kamath & Rao dt. 14.12.2007.
Ex C3: The copy of the credit sanction Intimation.
Ex C4: The copy of the Pass Book.
Ex C5: Office copy of the legal notice dt 22.12.2014.
Ex C6: The copy of the reply of Mr. S.M.Bhat dt. 03.10.2015.
Ex C7: The copy of the communication of the Opposite Party
dt 24.12.2014.
Ex C8: The copy of the rejoinder cum rectification
dtd 22.01.2015.
Ex C9: The copy of the reply dated 16.02.2015 of
Mr. S.M.Bhat.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party:
Nil
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Nil
Dated:30.11.2015 PRESIDENT
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. Opposite Party shall credit Rs. 2,810 and also pay Rs. 3,000 as damages and Rs. 3,000/- towards the cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In case of failure to pay the above mentioned amount within the stipulated time, the Opposite Party is directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above said total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the party free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 6 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of November 2015.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
