Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/81/2014

Shri. T.S.Maheshwarappa S/o. T.M.Shambulingappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Canara Bank, - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.G.Nataraj

28 Jul 2015

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON : 22/09/2014

     DISPOSED ON: 28/07/2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 81/2014 DATED:28th July 2015

 

PRESENT :-     SRI.V.H.RAMACHANDRA PRESIDENT                                      B.A., LL.B.,

                        SRI.H.RAMASWAMY                MEMBER

                                B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)

                SMT.G.E.SOWBHAGYALAKSHMI     MEMBER

                                B.A., LL.B.,

 

COMPLAINANT	Sri. T.S.Maheshwarappa, S/o T.M. Shambulingappa, R/o Bheemasamudra, Taluk: Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.G. Nataraj,  Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTY	The Manager, Canara Bank, Bheemasamudra Branch, Bheemasamudra, Chitradurga Taluk.   (Rep by Sri. R. Jagadeesh, Advocate)

 

SRI.V.H.RAMACHANDRA, MEMBER.

ORDER

 

The above said complainant has been filed by the complainant U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 for the relief to direct the Opposite party to delete the wrong entry dated 30.06.2011 and 19.06.2013 of Rs.600/- and Rs.30,461/- and to deduct the same from the balance amount of the loan account No.0482885007633 of complainant and to pay costs and compensation etc. 

2.     The brief facts of the case is that, he is a customer of OP Bank since last 15 years.  He is an  agriculturist and he approached the OP Bank to sanction the loan for construction of Farm House at Bheemasamudra in sy. No.3/5B of Turebail.  The OP has considered his request and sanctioned the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on 22.10.2008 and sanctioned the same under loan A/c No.0482885007633 for construction of Farm House.  On different occasions, OP has credited the loan amount to the SB A/c of complainant and it shall be repayable in 120 monthly installments.  The complainant has regularly repaid the loan installments without any default as per the statement of account dated 22.04.2014.  There is an outstanding balance of Rs.96,447/- and there is no due of installments.  It is also stated that, in the statement of account of the complainant dated 30.06.2011 a sum of Rs.600/- has been debited to loan account of complainant as legal fee bill lien noting charges.  But the complainant has not received any legal notice from the OP Bank.  Again the loan account statement dated 19.06.2013 a sum of Rs.30,461/- was debited to account of the complainant as outgoing bill short interest collected.  The above said wrong entry came to the knowledge of the complainant on 25.01.2014 and he inquired the same with the OP Bank and they have not gave satisfactory answers and so, issued a legal notice dated 04.07.2014 and it was served on 07.07.2014 but, OP has not issued any reply.  So, the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum and in spite of his request, wrong entries have not been corrected and so, OP has committed deficiency of service and etc., and prayed for allow the complaint.

 

        3. On service of notice, OP has appeared through Sri. R. Jagadeesh, Advocate and filed written version and admitted that, complainant is an agriculturist and he is the customer of OP Bank and availed loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on 22.10.2008 for construction of the Farm House.  It is also admitted that, as per the statement of account for general advances on different dates OP has credited the loan amount through SB A/c of the complainant and it is repayable in 120 monthly installments.  It is denied that, complainant is regular in repayment of the loan installments and not committed any default.  It is admitted that, as per statement of account on 22.04.2014 there is an outstanding balance of Rs.96,447/-.  It is admitted that, in the statement of account of complainant dated 30.06.2011 a sum of Rs.600/- has been debited to loan account of the complainant as lien noting charges by mistake of the computer instead of computerizing only lien noting charges wrongly computerized as legal fee bill lien noting charges.  Hence, a sum of Rs.600/- is debited towards lien noting charging only.  Under the said circumstances, the question of issue of legal notice and the complainant not received any legal notice from the OP Bank does not arise at all and the said Rs.600/- is not debited towards legal notice charges.  It is admitted that, again on 19.06.2013 a sum of Rs.30,461/- was debited to account of the complainant as short interest instead of computerizing only short interest by the computer in addition to short interest computerized as outgoing bill short interest.  Hence, the said entry is not corrected and not a wrong entry.  The wrong entry of this aspect came to the knowledge of the complainant on 25.01.2014.  It is denied that, complainant is regular in making repayment of installments and in fact the OP has clearly clarified the said correct entries in the statement of account and complainant is bound to pay the same as per the documents executed in favour of OP Bank.  It is admitted that, OP has tried to convince the complainant and so not issued any reply.  Alleged cause of action is denied.  Alleged deficiency of service and other allegations made in the complaint including claim of the complainant are denied and etc., and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.       

 

        4. Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and got marked Ex A-1 to A-4.

        5. OP has examined its Senior Manager Sri. K.N. Ravikumar, as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and got marked Ex B-1 to B-3.  

       

6. Arguments heard.

 

7. Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:

 

Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proves that, he is an agriculturist and borrowed the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the OP Bank on 22.10.2008 under loan account No.0482885007633 and OP has wrongly debited an amount of Rs.600/- towards legal fee bill lien noting charges on 30.06.2011 and again on 19.06.2013 a sum of Rs.30,461/- has been debited as outgoing bill short interest collected and inspite of repeated demands and legal notice OP has not credited the same and thereby committed deficiency of service and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

 

        8. Our findings on the above points are as follows:

 

        Point No.1:- Negative.

        Point No.2:- As per the final order.

 

                                ::REASONS::

       9. Point No. 1:- It is not in dispute that, complainant is an agriculturist and he borrowed the loan from OP Bank for construction of Farm House under loan account No.0482885007633 and according to the complainant, he was repaying the installments regularly.  It is the main contentions of the complainant that, in the loan account fated 30.06.2011 a sum of Rs.600/- has been debited to the loan account as legal fee bill lien noting charges but, complainant has not received any legal notice from OP Bank.  It is also the case of the complainant that, in the loan account statement dated 19.06.2013 a sum of Rs.30,461/- was debited to his loan account under the head outgoing bill short interest collection and both are wrong entries and thereby OP Bank has committed deficiency of service and in spite of repeated demands and legal notice dated 04.07.2014 OP has not corrected the same and thereby caused financial loss and mental agony and so, this complaint has been filed.

 

10.  In support of his contentions, complainant gas relied on his affidavit evidence in which he has re-iterated the contents of complaint and documents like Xerox copy of statement of loan account for the period from 01.01.2009 to 22.08.2014 marked as Ex.A-1 and on perusal of the same, it is true that, an amount of Rs.600/- has been charged and debited under the head of legal fee bill lien noting charges and on 19.06.2013 an amount of Rs.30,461/- has been debited as outgoing bill short interest as rightly contended by the complainant.  Whether it is mistaken entry or legal one has to seen later.  He also relied on endorsement dated 21.01.2014 marked as Ex.A-2.  Office copy of legal notice, postal receipt and acknowledgement are marked as Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4. 

 

       11.  On the other hand, it is the contentions of the OP that, OP Bank has admitted that, complainant is an agriculturist and owned land in sy.No.3/5B of Turebail in Bheemasamudra and for the purpose of construction of Farm House complainant has borrowed the loan of Rs.5,00,000/-.  However, OP has denied that, complainant was regular in making repayment of the loan amount.  However, that is not the point to be considered in this case.  Now main point is whether OP has illegally collected Rs.600/- dated 30.06.2011 and Rs.30,461/- on 19.06.2013.  OP has denied the same.  OP further contended that, due to typographical mistake and computerizing mistake such a wrong entries have been made and said amount of Rs.600/- was not debited towards legal notice charges.  But regarding debit entry of Rs.30,461/- was correctly done on the basis of Auditor's report as outgoing bill short interest and so, OP has not committed any deficiency of service and not liable to pay any amount to the complainant and complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

 

       12.  In support of his contentions, OP has relied on the affidavit of its Senior Manager in which he has reiterated the contents of version and documents like Xerox copy of the memorandum of agreement for agricultural loan, true copy of the income leakage details, true copy of the statement of loan account marked as Ex.B-1 to B-3.  Of course, the borrowing of loan by the complainant for construction of Farm House is not in dispute.  On perusal of Ex.B-2, it clearly shows income leakage details have been mentioned and Auditor's report found opined that, there was a short collection of interest of Rs.30,461/- and on that basis only OP Bank has debited the said amount dated 19.06.2013.  So there cannot be any merit in the contentions of the complainant. 

 

       13.  On the basis of above evidence and documentary evidence, Sri. G. Nataraj, Advocate for the complainant has strongly argued that, on 07.06.2011 without issuing any legal notice or any letter to the complainant, OP Bank has illegally debited the amount of Rs.600/- and without any issue of outgoing bills, on 09.06.2013 an amount of Rs.30,461/- has been debited and so after perusal of the statement of account complainant came to know that, the said mistake and so enquired with the OP Bank but, they have not gave any reply and thereafter issued legal notice as per Ex.A-3 and in spite of that, OP has not issued any reply and OP Bank has committed deficiency of service and filed a complaint and etc., and prayed for allow the complaint.

 

       14.  On the other hand, Sri. R. Jagadeesh, Advocate for the OP Bank has strongly resisted the contentions stating that, due to computerized mistake the first entry regarding Rs.600/- has been mentioned as legal fee bill lien noting charges instead of lien noting charges and that has been corrected and again in the entry dated 19.06.2013 for Rs.30,461/- has been made on the basis of Auditor's report as per Ex.B-2 and since Auditor's report have been received at a later stage so, it was found that, there was a mistake in calculating the interest and there was a short of Rs.30,461/- and same has been corrected later and so, OP Bank has not committed any deficiency of service and on taking correct calculation, the said Auditor's report is found to be correct and so that has to be ordered to collected by debiting to the loan account of the complainant. 

 

       15.  On hearing the rival contentions of both the sides and careful perusal of the entire records, of course, Ex.B-2 is the Auditor's report.  That report clearly shows an amount of Rs.30,461/- has been ordered to be collected by debiting the same to the account of the complainant as there was a mistake in calculating the interest in the earlier stages of the loan amount.  Therefore, we find no merit in the contentions taken by the complainant.  However, on perusal of the first entry regarding Rs.600/- that is also due to computerizing mistake.  Of course, it is not the case of the OP Bank that, complainant gave any legal notice or spend the amount for legal charges as rightly contended by the counsel for the complainant.  Due to computerized mistake it was mentioned as legal fee bill lien noting charges instead of lien noting charges as rightly contended by the OP Bank.  Of course, due to rush of work, such a mistake can be happened and therefore, there cannot be any merit in the contentions taken by the complainant and hence, we find no deficiency of service committed by the OP Bank and hence, we are of the considered opinion that, it is just and proper to hold that, this Point No.1 is held as negative to the complainant.

 

        16.   Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated there in we pass the following.

ORDER

        It is ordered that the complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby dismissed.

        Under the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs.       

       

(This order is made with the consent of President and Member after the correction of the draft on 28/07/2015 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)   

 

MEMBER                   MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Complainant by filing affidavit evidence taken as PW-1 Witness examined on behalf of complainant:

                                                -Nil-

 On behalf of OP Sri. K.N. Ravikumar, Senior Manager as DW-1 by filing affidavit.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Xerox copy of statement of loan account for the period from 01.01.2009 to 22.08.2014
02	Ex-A-2:-	Endorsement dated 21.01.2014
03	Ex-A-3:-	Office copy of legal notice, postal receipt
04	Ex-A-4:-	Postal Acknowledgement

 

Documents marked on behalf of Opponent:

 

01	Ex-B-1:-	Xerox copy of the memorandum of agreement for agricultural loan
02	Ex-B-2:-	True copy of the income leakage details
03	Ex-B-3:-	True copy of the statement of loan account

 

 

MEMBER                   MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Rhr.