DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the   20^th  day of December,  2023

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :  Smt. Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 29/11/2021 

                         CC/219/2021

Rajesh V.M.,

S/o. Muthu,

Radhika Nilayam,

Kinavallur Post,  Palakkad                                                 -                       Complainant

      (By Adv. Surendran P.A.)

                                                                                                Vs

                   Branch Manager in Charge,

State Bank of India,

Parali Branch,

IX/547 A, Kalyana Mandir,

Parali, Palakkad – 678 612.                                              -           Opposite parties

(By Adv. M/s. G. Ananathakrishnan & K.B.Priya)

O R D E R 

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Brief complaint is that the complainant availed financial assistance from the OP by pledging 161.50 gm gold ornaments and availed Rs.5,50,000/- for a period of 18 months with interest @7.5% p.a.  But the OP transferred only Rs.4,24,749/- alone as against Rs.5,50,000/- availed.  The balance of Rs.1,25,000/- was credited in installments carried over a month.  Since there was lack of transparency on the part of OPs transactions the complainant closed the amount by payment of Rs.76,769/- by way of interest and other payments. Upon verification it was found that the OP had illegally charged Rs.32,082/-. This complaint is filed seeking return of Rs.32,082/- and for other incidental expenses.
2. OP stated that the facility availed by the complainant was an over draft gold loan for Rs.5,50,000/- on 19/8/2020. Complainant had executed and delivered necessary documents. OD limit is set against the value of god as per bank’s rate (75% of market value and the bank provides a rate every month). The drawing power of OD changes every month. If drawing power is less , the complainant has to pay the difference in amount alongwith interest and if drawing power is more then there will be excess funds which can be availed within the limit.  The account which is the subject matter of this complaint the complainant’s second gold OD. The complainant had earlier availed a gold loan on 22/10/2019. The closure value of the loan was Rs.4,24,749/- on 19/8/2020. This amount was transferred from the newly availed OD account to the earlier account and the dues were settled.  Since the account is an OD, the complainant can execute transactions in the account on his own within limits from 20/8/2020. Since the complainant had been carrying out online transactions, pass book was not issued by the bank. But the complainant can avail statement of accounts using online facility. The complainant had made defaults in repayment. The account became NPA on 30/4/2021 as interest was due from 28/2/2021, 31/3/2021 and 30/4/2021. Complainant paid Rs.3,000/- on 13/9/2021 but by that time the OD limit had expired. Even though gold granted as security were to be sold in auction, the security was not auctioned off in view of Covid pandemic conditions. The complainant closed the OD account on 28/9/2021. There is no excess amount as alleged by the complainant. They sought for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.  Pleading and counter pleadings considered, the following issues were raised by this Commission.

1. Whether the  OP bank had charged any amount in violation of statutory or contractual provision ?
2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service / unfair trade practice on the part of OP?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4. Any other reliefs?

4.(a)   Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. A1 to A5.  Complainant was examined as PW1.

                       Marking of Exts. A2 & A4 were objected on the ground they were photocopies. Ext.A5 was objected to as it was doctor’s prescription and should be marked only thought the issuing person.  Since this Commission is not bound by Indian Evidence Act and in the absence of a plea on the part of OP that the said objected documents were forged or concocted, said objections are overruled.                               

(b)      O.P.  filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. B3 to B7.  Exts. B1 & B2 were marked through confrontation. Witness for OP was examined as DW1.          

            Issue No.1

5.         Complainant’s case that he had availed a financial assistance for Rs.5,50,000/- out of which only Rs.4,24,749/- granted to the complainant. Crux of the issue is that the OP had over charged the complainant to a tune of Rs. 32,082/-. The OP objected to the pleadings stating that the facility that was granted was an OD facility wherein the payment was not a one-time affair but that continued until the OD time limit.  In fact the amount that was paid was used for closing an earlier gold OD that was availed by the complainant.

6.         In order to substantiate their contentions, the OP sought for cross examining the complainant. He was examined as PW1.

His qualification shows that he holds a degree in Commerce. To the question regarding the nature of financial assistance granted, the complainant admits that he had availed an overdraft facility. He is well versed, as is evidenced by subsequent testimony, in matters pertaining to the financial assistance granted by way of OD facility. He has admitted that he had executed Ext.B1 and B2 and the contents therein. He has admitted that the value of security fluctuates in accordance with prevailing gold rate, substantiating the pleadings of the O.P.  His further stated that (page 3 lines 12 to 15) his pleadings in complaint regarding bank withdrawing money was made in the context of amounts taken from SB account for settlement of gold loans.  He also admits that his account was declared NPA and that the bank had directed him to pay interest in time (page 4 lines 13 to 16). Even though in page 5 the complainant states that the bank had granted him additional time till 18 months the complainant could not prove by way of any documentary evidence that the time was extended. To a pointed question as to whether there was       any reason for not availing the assistance of an expert in understanding the statement of accounts, the complainant states that his grievance is with regard to loss of money and the lack of proper explanation.

7.         Even though manager of OP bank was examined as DW1, he stuck to his guns in tune      with the version pleadings.  DW1 denied availing Rs.76,769/- as interest. He stated that     the said amount included interest and penal interest.

8.         It goes without saying that the complainant is aggrieved by two issues.

            i) He was granted on Rs.4,24,749/- Instead of Rs.5,50,000/- granted by the bank.

            ii) That an additional amount of Rs.32,082/- was levied by the OP.

9.         To the first grievance the complainant himself as admitted that the facility availed by him was an OD account and not a one-time remittance and that the said lesser amount was paid off to settle an earlier gold loan availed by him. He has also admitted that he could avail amounts periodically from the account. Hence, the first complaint fails.

10.       The second grievance is with regard to charging an additional amount of Rs.32,082/-. In order to prove the legal sanctity of levying this amount witness for OP was examined. He has clearly stated that the amount charged upon the complainant is not the interest alone, but penal interest as well. Even otherwise, this complaint being one assailing the calculations of the O.P., the complainant ought to have adduced prudent and cogent evidence by way of dealing with entries in the statement of accounts and pointing out where the discrepancies have been made by the bank, as alleged. Hence, on this account also the complainant has failed to prove a cogent case.

11.       Thus the complainant has failed to prove his case. 

      Issue Nos. 2, 3 &4

12.          In view of the findings in Issue No.1, we hold that there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency                in service on the part of OP.

13.          The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.

14.          In the fact and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.    Accordingly this complaint is dismissed.

     Pronounced in open court on this the  20^th day of December,  2023.                                                                                                                                           Sd/-                                                                                             

                                                                                                        Vinay Menon V

                                                               President

                                                                      Sd/-

            Vidya.A

                                  Member        

                 Sd/-                                                               

     Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                               Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1   -  Copy of memorandum of gold deposit

Ext.A2  –  Copy of statement of account for A/c No.39585327602 from 19/8/2020 to 23/9/21

Ext.A3   -  Copy of facing sheet of Bank Pass Book   

Ext.A4  -   Copy of  Transfer register under YONO

Ext.A5 –   Original of Hospital document

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

Ext.B1 –  Original application for loan against gold ornaments.

Ext.B2 –  Original arrangement letter for liquid gold scheme

Ext.B3 –  Original statement of account for A/c No.38864308192

Ext.B4 -   Original statement of account for A/c No.39585327602 from 19/8/2020 to 18/8/21

Ext.B5 -  Original statement of account for A/c No.39585327602 from 19/8/21 to 30/9/21

Ext,B6 –  Original appraisal cum sanction report

Ext.B7  –  Copy of CIBIL report (partly cut out)

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

 Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1 – Rajesh V.M. (Complainant)

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: 

DW1 – Deepak (Branch Manager, SBI)

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.