Karnataka

Kolar

CC/52/2017

Sri. V.M. Ramesh Babu, S/o. Late Munivenkatappa, Aged About 42 Years, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, State Bank Of India, - Opp.Party(s)

C.R.Krishnamurthy

14 Dec 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing: 21/07/2017

Date of Order: 14/12/2017

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 52 OF 2017

Sri. V.M. Ramesh Babu,

S/o. Late Munivenkatappa,

Aged About 42 Years,

R/at: Uppakunte Village,

Sugutur Hobli, Kolar Taluk.                                ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. C.R.Krishnamurthy, Advocate)

 

- V/s -

1) The Divisional Manager,

State Bank Of India,

Kuvempunagara, Kolar.

(Exparte)

 

2) The Manager, State Bank Of India,

BEML Nagara Branch, K.G.F

(Rep. by Sri.J.Simon, Advocate)                     …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

-: ORDERS:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint on hand as envisaged Under Section 11 And 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred in short as “the Act”) against the opposite parties claiming issuance of directions against the Ops to receive the balance amount of Rs.7,716/- from the counsel of the complainant towards final settlement of his loan account and issue directions to issue the clearance certificate of his loan.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is the contention of the complainant that, he had availed a personal loan vide account No.6418804698 from OP No.2 in the year 2007 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- due to his personal problems and he could not able to pay the installment amount in time as per the terms and conditions of the said loan.  The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,54,000/- till 2014.  OP No.2 had issued notice dated: 20.05.2017 stating that, the complainant has to settle the loan amount in Bank Adalath which would be held on 20.05.2017.  The complainant had appointed a counsel to represent the Bank Adalath on his behalf.  The matter was settled at Bank Adalath by deducting 20% of the loan amount and settled the amount for a sum of Rs.1,87,816/-.  As per the settlement and the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the OP No.1 and the remaining amount is Rs.1,47,716/-.  On 02.06.2017 the counsel for the complainant went to pay the entire amount to the OP No.2, but OP No.2 had refused to receive the same and asked him to present the complainant to the Bank regarding settlement of criminal case.  And the complainant had paid the entire balance amount through RTGS and still balance of Rs.7,716/- to the Ops.

 

(b)    It is further submitted that, OP No.2 by abusing the complainant in filthy language in the premises of the bank had committed an offence Under Section 353 of IPC which leads to harassment of the consumers and also violation of Bank rules and the act.  The complainant had issued a legal notice dated: 03.06.2017 through his counsel to receive the balance amount of Rs.7,716/- and to issue clearance certificate.  But to his surprise Ops demanded to pay a balance amount of Rs.33,016/- instead of Rs.7,716/- as per the settlement made in the Bank Adalath.  So contending, the complainant has come up with this complaint on the above set-out reliefs.

 

03.   As per the proceedings noted in the order-sheet OP No.1 placed exparte. 

 

04.   In response to the notice issued by this Forum, the learned counsel put his appearance for OP No.2 and filed written version by resisting the claim of the complainant.

 

(a)    OP No.2 has specifically contends that, the complainant has availed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 10.07.2017 with third party Guarantee of Mr. Hanumesh.  After availing of the loan the complainant had left BEML Ltd, during 2011.  Since no repayment was forthcoming, on 21.04.2012 OP No.2 had sent a notice to the complainant.  On 22.05.2017 another notice came to be issued calling upon the complainant to settle the matter in the Bank Adalath which would be held on 29.05.2017.  For which Sri.C.R. Krishna Murthy, Advocate from Kolar is the representative of the complainant who had attended the Bank Adalath and settled the matter as below:-

Details of Bank Adalath Sri.V.M.Ramesh Babu (complainant) bearing A/c. No.64018804698.

 

Balance outstanding                                        Rs.1,54,848=00

Plus Accrued Interest                               Rs.   73,902=00

Plus Arrears Interest                                        Rs.     8,966=00

Total                                                        Rs.2,37,716=00

Less. 20% Concession (Bank Adalath)       Rs.   50,000=00

Amount to be recovered from borrower      Rs.1,87,716=00

Date,                               Amount paid

29.05.2017                   Rs.   40,000=00

02.06.2017                   Rs.1,00,000=00

03.06.2017                   Rs.        500=00

03.06.2017                   Rs.   14,300=00  Rs.1,54,800=00

Amount Due to be Recovered                   Rs.    32,916=00

 

(b)    OP No.2 further contends that, as per the letter dated: 29.05.2017 issued by Sri. C.R. Krishna Murthy, Advocate/Representative of the complainant has clearly admits that, he will repay the entire amount as agreed in the Bank Adalath on or before 02.06.2017.  But later on neither the complainant nor the representative of the complainant Sri.C.R. Krishnamurthy, advocate, turned up to pay the agreed settlement amount of the said loan.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2.  So contending OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint, exemplary cost had been sought.

 

05.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief.  On behalf of OP No.2 Sri.T.Uday Kumar, Branch Manager, SBI, BEML Nagar, K.G.F., has submitted affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief.  Both counsel have submitted their written arguments respectively.  Heard oral arguments of both the parties.

 

06.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration are:-

(1) Whether the Ops rendered deficiency in service?

 

(2) If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought for in the complaint?

(3) What order?

 

07.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (1):-      In the Negative

POINT (2):-      Does not survive for consideration.

POINT (3):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

POINT (1) & (2):-

08.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time. 

 

09.   It is an admitted fact that, the complainant had availed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from OP No.2 on 10.07.2007 vide account No.64018804696 and the said matter was settled in the Bank Adalath.  But here the controversy of the complainant through this complaint is, according to the complainant he had repaid the entire amount as per the Bank Adalath settlement.  But the complainant had not produced a single document with regard to the repair of the entire loan amount. 

 

10.   On perusal of the statement of account vide A/c No.64018804698 submitted by the OP dated: 11.08.2017 it clearly shows that, on 29.05.2017 a sum of Rs.40,000/- has been credited to this loan account and still balance amount is of Rs.1,54,800/-.  On perusal of the copy of the letter issued by this complainant to the Manager of OP No.2, it clearly discloses that, on 02.06.2017 this complainant is going to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,47,716/- towards the said loan.  And another document which is a copy of deposit pay-in-slip shows that, a sum of Rs.40,000/- has been credited to OP No.2-Bank. 

 

11.   On perusal of the slip of challan dated: 03.06.2017 submitted by the complainant shows that, Rs.348/- has been deposited to the loan account No.64018804698.  Another pay-in-slip dated: 29.05.2017 (the month left blank) shows that, Rs.40,000/- has been deposited to complainant’s loan account.  Another pay-in-slip dated: 03.06.2017 shows that, Rs.14,500/- was deposited to complainant’s loan account.  Another pay-in-slip dated: 02.06.2017 shows that, Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited to the complainant’s loan account.  Another pay-in-slip dated: 02.06.2017 shows that, a sum of Rs.1,48,000/- was deposited to some other account i.e., to A/c. No.64008935521. 

 

12.   On perusal of the statement of bank account submitted by the Op No.2 as well as the complainant the loan account of this complainant is vide A/c No.64018804698, but the pay-in-slip dated: 02.06.2017 submitted by this complainant clearly disclose that, the complainant had deposited Rs.1,48,000/- to some other A/c bearing No.64008935521 which is other than the complainant’s loan account.  What is the logic behind this submission of a false pay-in-slip which is not at all belongs to the complainant’s loan account would be a suspectable? 

 

13.   In view of the above discussion, we consider the version of the OP No.2 based on the above mentioned documents.  The complainant has failed to prove that the complete deposit of the said arrears of his loan as agreed in the Bank Adalath on 29.05.2017.  Therefore we are of the opinion that, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op No.2.

 

14.   However an option is kept open for the Ops to recover Rs.32,916/- before the competent authority of law.  Accordingly we answer Point (1) in the Negative and Point (2) Does not survive for consideration.

 

POINT (3):-

15.   In view of the above discussions on Point (1) we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint stands dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/-.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 14^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT