DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

C.C.NO. 06 OF 2021

                                                                              Date of Filing:27.01.2021

                    Date of Order: 06.03.2023

Sri Surendra Pradhan

S/o Late Suamali Pradhan

At-Mukulingia,Po- Malikapadi

Ps- G.udayagiri

District-Kandhamal                          …………….. Complainant.

Versus.

1. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India(ADB),

G.Udayagiri

2. The Field Officer,

 State Bank of India(ADB),

 G.Udayagiri                                          ……….….. Opp. Parties

Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

                        Sri Sudhakar Senapothi          - Member.

For the Complainant: Mr.B.Mohanty & Associate Advs.

For O.P.                     : Mr.V.V.Ramdas Adv.

JUDGEMENT

Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President.

          Complainant Surendra Pradhan has filed this case against the Opposite Parties alleging unfair trade practice for crediting a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- by incurring loans in his name without his knowledge and consent and praying therein for direction to the Opposite Parties to delete the interest, inspection charge and the cost of insurance and to pay a sum of Rs. 50, 000/-towards compensations for harassment suffered by him.

1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant is a retired army personnel and he has opened an account in State Bank of India, G.Udayagiri Branch bearing Account No. 11754430900 through which his pension is credited by the competent authority. The complainant had availed one KCC loan on 11.07.2014 for Rs. 43,000/- and the KCC Account Number is 33958017239. He was repaying Rs. 2000/- regularly from his SB Account to the loan account. When the KCC loan is about to be closed, without his knowledge and consent and without his signature the O.P has credited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 20.04.2016, a sum of Rs. 60,000/- on 01.06.2019, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on 11.03.2019 and a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on 15.09.2020 and the OP Bank is accordingly charging interest, inspection fee and insurance charges. As the monthly pension is coming to the saving account and as he was withdrawing money through ATM, it is not possible on his part to know the details as the Pass Book is not updated. After knowing about this fact, he ran several times to the Branch Manager and Field Officer and requested them to delete the interest, inspection charge and insurance fees but of no avail. Feeling harassed by such conduct of Opposite Parties, the complainant approached this Commission for the reliefs as discussed above.
2. After receipt of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared through their advocates and filed written statements. In their written statement, the Opposite Parties stated that the complainant had availed agriculture loan amounting to Rs. 43000/- and he was repaying Rs. 2, 000/- from his Savings Bank Account. The complainant’s KCC account debited Rs. 50, 000/- and transferred to SB account on 01.04.2016, Rs. 60, 000/- on 14.01.2019, and Rs. 20,000/- on 11.03.2019. The Bank has debited the amount with vouchers duly signed by the complainant and similarly, credited the amount with duly signed vouchers. The repayment period of KCC account is 5 years and the account is to be closed within 5 years’ time or renew the account or else the account became NPS. In the present case, the complainant has not closed the KCC account within the stipulated period and accordingly the bank has renewed the account by debiting Rs. 40,000 and credited to SB account. A sum of Rs. 1012/- and Rs. 1295/- were debited on 30.09.2014 and 03.07.2020 respectively towards crop insurance. Further, they have collected the inspection charges of Rs. 4,175 for the period from 2015 to 2020. The complainant is fully aware of these facts and he has filed a false and vexatious complain for which they claim for dismissal of the case with costs.
3. The only allegation of the complainant is that the three loans which has been advanced against him is without his knowledge, consent and signature. Even though the Opposite Parties deny the allegations and stated that it has been done within the knowledge consent and proper signature of the complainant, a single scrap of paper like the copy of the  application form, copy of the loan agreement, copy of credit and debit vouchers have not been filed by the Opposite Parties and therefore, the pleadings of the O.P. without any documentary evidence cannot be accepted. It is settled principle of law that pleadings without evidence has no basis. In the instant case, not a single document has been filed in support of their pleadings.
4. It is clear that the bank acted in a very illegal and unscrupulous manner and exploited the complainant for unlawful gain by raising loans without his knowledge and consent.
5. As a case of unfair trade practice is made out against the Opposite Parties, they are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and harassment sustained by the complainant and hence the order.

O R D E R

The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the Opposite Parties. The OPs are made liable for practising unfair trade practice and causing harassment to the complainant. The OPs are directed not to collect any interest and inspection charge and insurance charge from the complainant against these loans. The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty five thousand)only towards unfair trade practice and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand)only towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest @ 12% shall be charged on the awarded amount from the date of order till its compliance.

Computerized & corrected by me.

I Agree

     MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 6^th day of March 2023 in the presence of the parties.  

     MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT