Date of Filing :22.12.2017

Date of Disposal : 23.08.2024

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 23^rd DAY OF AUGUST 2024

PRESENT

Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

(DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE (R)

Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER

APPEAL No.2646/2017 to 2658/2017

Mr Anil Colaco
S/o Late John S. Colaco,

Aged about 56 years,

R/at Kalsapura Estate,

Kalsapura, P.Box No.18,

Koppa,Chickmagalur Dist.
(By M/s Chandra & Shekar Associates)

(Appellant is same in all these Appeals)                           Appellant

                                                 -Versus-

The Manager .
Karnataka Bank Ltd.,

Ganesh complex,

T.M.Road, Koppa,

Chickmagalur Dist.
(By Y.V.Parthasarathi, Advocate)                                    Respondent

(Respondent is same in all these Appeals)  

-: COMMON ORDER:-

Mr. K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICAL MEMBER:

1.       These Appeals are filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Complainants aggrieved by the Order dated 31.03.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No.3/2015, 38/2015 to 49/2015 respectively on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chickmagaluru (for short, the District Forum).

2.       The Parties to this Appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the District Forum.

3.       The Commission examined the impugned order, grounds of Appeal, Appeal papers. Now the point that arises for consideration of this Commission would be: 

          Whether impugned order dated 31.03.2017 passed in CC No. 3/2015, 38/2015 to 49/2015 does call for any interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the Appeal Memorandum?

4.       All these complaints are filed by Complainant are clubbed together to record a Common Order, as the relief sought  are also similar. He has sought  for   directions against the  OP to consider his representations and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- each, litigation costs at Rs.5,000/- each and  also sought to issue direction against OP to disclose, what extent of amount of interest was charged on the loan account after announcement of the Vidarbha Package from Reserve Bank of India. All these complaints were contested by OP/Karnataka Bank, Kopppa. In view of their rival contentions in consideration of the complaint averments and the version statements, the District Forum proceed to hold an enquiry   by receiving affidavit evidence and documents from either side and after closure of enquiry, formed an opinion that the complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of OP Bank. Accordingly, dismissed the complaints. It is this common order is assailed in these Appeals contending that the District Forum erred in dismissing the complaints without appreciating the materials on record and such findings are to be held contrary to the facts and law is liable to be set aside.

5.       Let us examine the case of the Complainant and the defense set up by the OP Bank.  It is not in dispute that the  Complainant is the consumer and the OP is  the service provider. It is also not in dispute that complainant had benefitted with Vidarabha Package as per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines and their loan account was closed during the year 2013.  However they raised a consumer complaints on 05.01.2015 only after, they got the benefit announced under Vidarbha Package during the year 2013.  It was their grievance that OP bank did not followed the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and demanded the arrears in their loan account with imagination and exploited figures, the loan arrears demanded by OP Bank is a fancy figure to benefit the bank and not in accordance with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India under Vidarbha Scheme.  According to them, OP Bank ought to have disclosed the documents much prior to demanding the arrears in the loan account so that a customer while availing the benefit under the Vidarbha Scheme of the Reserve Bank could have appraised. It was their grievances that OP declined the supply documents through communication dated 10.11.2014.  It has come in the enquiry held by the DF that the Complainant was chronic defaulter in repayment of the loan and the OP bank issued a notice and only after the said notice, a case against complainant came to be filed for recovery of Rs.1,33,00,000/- being the amount due under various loan account before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru in OA No.245/2002. 

6.       It is not in dispute that such case was filed before DRT in OA No.245/2002 against Complainant for recovery of Rs.1,33,00,000/- and it is also not in dispute that the said recovery dispute ended in settlement under OTS. According to OP, Rs.55,73,063/- was sacrificed and after OTS, Complainant had raised these disputes.  In this regard, District Forum held, as the OP had furnished the required information to the Complainant and when his dispute is settled under Vidarbha Scheme as per RBI guidelines, now cannot contend, interest charged on the loan account are not to his satisfaction and cannot now alleged against OP Bank as rendered deficiency in service could be said right, as they are the   sound reasons recorded, while passing the impugned order.  Hence, we did not find any grounds to interfere in the impugned order, proceed to dismiss all these Appeals with no order as to costs.

7.       Send copy of this Order to the District Commission and the parties concerned for their information.

8.       Keep the original of this Order in Appeal No.2646/2017 and copy thereon in the rest of the Appeals.

                Lady Member                    Judicial Member

*s