Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/302/2013

Yallappa R Hulagannavar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager of Union Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

V K Patil

30 Dec 2016

ORDER

                 

ADDITIONAL  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELAGAVI

C.C.No.302/2013

                       Date of filing: 02/05/2013

                                                                                                                 Date of disposal:30/12/2016

P R E S E N T :-

	(1)	Shri. A.G.Maldar, B.Com,LL.B. (Spl.) President.
	(2)	Smt.J.S. Kajagar, B.Sc. LLB. (Spl.)  Lady Member.

 

COMPLAINANT        -

Shri.Yallappa Ramappa Hulagannavar, Age: 57 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Kenganur, Tq: Bailhongal, Dist. Belgaum.                             (Rep. by Sri.V.K.Patil, Adv.)

- V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES  -

1.         2.

The Manager, Union Bank of India, Bailhongal, Dist.Belgaum.                             (Rep. by Sri.S.B.Bichu, Adv.)   Shri. Pawar, Agricultural Filed Officer, Union Bank of India, Bailhongal.                                           (Ex-parte)

JUDGEMENT

 

By  Sri.A.G. Maldar, President.

 

 

1.      This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Parties (in short the “Ops”) directed to return the deposit amount kept in SB A/c. 6169 on 04.06.2012 for Rs.50,000/- and Rs.12,250/- dtd:17.06.2011 with interest and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and pain and Rs.5,000/- towards cost etc.,

 

2.      The facts of the case in brief are that;

 

          It is case of the complainant is that, the complainant is the consumer of the OP No.1 Bank, the last 21 years holding his S.B. A/c No.6169, the complainant is regularly deposited the amount in the current S.B. A/c and received the receipts counter foil voucher from OP.NO.1. Further it is contended that, the complainant’s brother by name Shri.Basappa Ramappa Hulagannavar has got agriculture loan account in OP.No.1’s Bank for this the complainant as a surety alongwith his brother in the OP.No.1 bank, and the said loan account is handled by OP.No.2. Because, the complainant has stood as surety for the release of the loan amount infavour of the complainants brother. The complainant’s brother Shri.B.R.Hulagannavar has got released the entire agriculture loan A/c No. 374606040141936. The OP.No.1’s loan account ledger extract clearly reveals that, the loan account purely handled by complainant’s brother and the complainants brother has took the entire responsibility and repay the loan amount to the OP.No.1.

 

          Further it is case of the complainant that, the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.50,000/- to his S.B. A/c No.6169 maintained in the OP.No.2 Bank on 04.06.2011 and Rs.12,250/- on 17.06.2011 and the OP.No.2 has received the amount and returned the counter foil receipt. After collection of receipts the complainant went away from OP Bank with confirmation of the  deposited amount in S.B. A/c.

 

          It is case of the complainant that, on 17.06.2011 the complainant has deposited the amount of three times i.e. Rs.54,325/-, Rs.12,250/- and Rs.5,250/- to his current S.B. A/c and counter foil received from the cashier. At that, time the complainant has made enquiry regarding correct balance amount of his account in Op.No.1’s Bank, but the Op.NO.2 has stated that, complainant’s account is correct as per deposit.  

 

          Further it is case of the complainant that, at the time of enquiry about the amount of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.12,250/- in OP.No.1s bank regarding S.B. A/c., the OP.No.2 has not provided the sufficient information and even not shown the amount has been deposited in the S.B. A/c of the complainant. So, the Op.No.1 & 2 have colluded with each other and over written the account number and not deposited the amount to the S.B. A/c which is stands in the name of complainant, so for the illegal act of the Op.No.1 & 2 the complainant has shocked and suffered the loss.

 

 

          Further it is contended that, the complainant has again deposited the amount for Rs.18,450/- on 01.07.2011 and Rs.5,000/- on 24.06.2011 and further the complainant has obtained the ledger account on 25.03.2012 of S.B.A/c No.6169 and has shocked, the amount of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.12,250/- are not deposited as per the deposit voucher dtd:04.06.2011 and 17.06.2011. The complainant has filed the application before the Op.No.3 on 12.04.2013 regarding the amount of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.12,250/- deposited in S.B. A/c and the said amount illegally without knowledge of complainant not had shown the entry of the said amount. But the OP.No.2 has received the application of the complainant and made endorsement on 13.04.2013 that, the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited in S.B. A/c transfer to loan account because loan account was overdue. Such endorsement has been issued by OP.NO.2 and regarding Rs.12,250/- the Op.No.1 & 2 have not explained about the amount where it has gone are not disclosed till today to the complainant. Therefore, being this harsh reply the complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum.

 

3.      After issue of notice to the Opponents, the OP.No.1 has appeared through his counsel and OP.No.2 has neither appeared nor filed any version before this Forum, inspite of giving sufficient time. Therefore, the OP.No.2 is placed Ex-parte and OP.No.1 resisted the claim of the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious and the same is dismissed with compensatory cost.

 

          It is case of the OP contended that, the complainant has not regularly deposited amount in S.B. A/c and not maintained the counter foils of vouchers. Further OP submitted that, the complainant’s brother Mr.Basappa R. Hulgannavar has not taken the agricultural loan account and only he has handled the responsibility of the said loan amount and further OP denied that, the complainant has already prepared the deposit voucher filled in the S.B. A/c No.6169 and had deposited for Rs.50,000/- on 04.06.2011 and Rs.12,250 on 17.06.2011 and same has received by the OP.No.2 and returned the counter foil receipt and further on 17.06.2011, the complainant has deposited the amount in three times of Rs.54,325/-, Rs.12,250/- and Rs.5,250/- to his S.B. A/c and the counter foil of the cashier is received and further it is denied that, the complainant made enquiry regarding the balance  amount and further the complainant has not been deposited the amount of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.12,250/- to his S.B. A/c  and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP and complainant has filed false complaint against the OP.   

 

          The OP further submitted that, it is true that, the complainant has filed an application on 13.04.2013 regarding the amount of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.12,250/- and the OP has replied the said letter through their Counsel on 15.05.2013 and contended that, the contents of the application were false and same were denied and further OP denied that, on 18.06.2011 the complainant has deposited Rs.22,750/- in his S.B. A/c and OP.No.1&2 have issued the counter file voucher.

 

          The case of the OP that, the complainant and his brother Mr.Ramappa have taken agricultural crop loan and term loan for land development jointly and have executed the loan agreement towards the mortgage deed jointly. Thus, it is the responsibility of both the borrowers to make the payment and the OP officials informed the complainant that, the said loan account was overdue i.e. loan A/c No74606040141936, standing in the name of the complainant and his brother Mr.Ramappa. The complainant is well aware of all these facts and has intentionally suppressed these facts before this Forum and harasses the OP.  

 

 

          Further it is case of the OP that, the complainant has never deposited any amount of Rs.12,250/- as claimed against the OP by way of cash on 17.06.2011 in the OP bank. As per the system of bank, any cash deposit if there, it is reflected in the Cash Scroll Book registered and it is numbered duly and then, the cash deposit is accepted by the cashier. No such cash deposit entry is either found in the register or with the cashier. On this count also the complaint of the complainant is liable to be rejected and there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

 

4.       The Advocate for complainant has filed his affidavit in support of his case and on behalf of complainant has produced 26 documents which were marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-26, for sake of our convenience, we have marked P & R series. On behalf of the OP.No.1 has also filed 06 documents and same are marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6. The adv. for complainant has filed his written argument and heard the arguments on both sides.

 

 

Now, on the basis of these facts, the following points arise for our consideration:

 

1. Whether the complainant has proved that, there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP regarding the deposit amount kept in S.B. A/c?

 

 

2. What order?

 

 

5.       Our findings to the above points are as under:

 

                              

1. In the negative.
2. As per the final order for the following:

 

 

                               :: R E A S O N S ::

 

 

 

6. POINT NO:1:-  After perusing the both pleadings and affidavit evidence of complainant and documents on record.  It is crystal clear that, the Complainant has borrowed the agriculture loan from the OP.No.1 it is clearly shows that,  in document produced by the OP i.e. Loan application dtd:02.08.2009, loan sanction letter on 20.08.2009, and mortgage deed executed by complainant for Rs.2,00,000/- which are marked as Ex.R-3 to Ex.R-6 and the said loan account is handled by OP.No.2 bank by mortgaging the land and accordingly his account number has been opened 374606040141936 and complainant’s brother Mr.Basappa R. Hulgannavar has not taken the agricultural loan account and only he has handled the responsibility of the said loan amount. When such is the situation but, the complainant has not putforth and explained regarding the loan, though it has clearly revels in the above said document, therefore the complainant has not approached with the clean hand and the complainant has suppressed the material facts in respect of loan and alleging that, the complainant has not taken any loan and claiming the damage for deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Therefore, in our consider opinion the contention of the complainant alleged in the complaint and as well as affidavit evidence has not acceptable and the document relied by the complainant which also shows that, there was a manipulation and fabrication in respect of date, account number and amount in said counter foil vouchers, even the complainant has not explained regarding loan which has taken by the complainant in the year 2009 for Rs.2,00,000/- why the complainant suppressed the same fact before this Forum and stated that, the complainant have not taken loan, certainly it create doubts regarding transactions and alleged contentions in complaint. More ever, the complainant has approached the Hon’ble permanent Lok Adalath, Belagavi in PLD No.15/2013, wherein the complainant has not claim in respect of Rs.50,000/- which has been credited in the loan account of complainant.

 

Further the case of the OP that, the complainant and his brother Mr.Ramappa have taken agricultural crop loan and term loan for land development jointly and have executed the loan documents including the mortgage deed jointly, the OP officials informed the complainant that, the said loan account was overdue i.e. loan A/c No74606040141936, standing in the name of the complainant and his brother Mr.Ramappa  and  the complainant has never deposited any amount of Rs.12,250/- on dtd: 17.06.2011 as claimed, the said contention has not disprove by the complainant, so it is acceptable and it has merit in the contention raised by the OP. 

 

          As per the complainant that, when Rs.50,000/- which has been deposited in the loan account, then the complainant has not raised any objection and keep mum and even he has not raised in question in respect of said amount of Rs.50,000/- before the Hon’ble permanent Lok Adalath, Belagavi in PLD No.15/2013, but now merely producing the counter foil vouchers of OPs bank does not establish that, the OP committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Therefore, the complainant has not substantiate to prove the alleged contention contended in complaint as well as affidavit evidence by producing the material documents and acceptable and reliable evidence of Mr.Basappa Hulagannavar who is co-borrower as per loan sanction letter in respect of bank transaction as alleged. Therefore, in our consider opinion that, the complainant has not approached with clean hands and the compliant has suppressed the material facts in respect of loan. So, the contention of the complainant cannot be believable and OP discharge their duty in terms and conditions of mortgage deed. Therefore, in our consider view, the complainant has failed to substantiate with cogent and material documents and acceptable affidavit evidence as such the case as alleged in the complaint and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, we answer this Point negative. Hence, we proceed to pass the following;

 

O R D E R

 

For the reason discuss above, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the C.P. Act – 1986 is here by dismissed.

 

No order as to costs. 

 

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 30^th  day of December 2016).

   

 

Sri. A.G.Maldar,     President.

Smt. J.S. Kajagar,    Lady Member.