Karnataka

Kolar

CC/4/2017

NarayanaReddy.A - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sri.V.Bheemanna

04 Sep 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing: 06/01/2017

Date of Order: 04/09/2017

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

 

Dated: 04^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017

PRESENT

SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT

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

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 04 OF 2017

Sri.Narayanareddy.A,

S/o.Late Anjanareddy,

Aged About 53 Years, BSNL

Employee, R/at: Manchanabele Road,

Vapasandra, Presently

R/at: BSNL Quarters, Chikkaballapura,

Chikkaballapura District                                     

(Rep. by Sriyuth. C.Subramani, Advocate)                    ….  COMPLAINANT.

 

- V/s -

The Manager,

Canara Bank,

Doom Light Circle,

Kolar Town.

 

(Rep. by Sriyuth S.Nandeesh, Advocate)                    …. OPPOSITE PARTY.

 

-: ORDERS:-

BY SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has filed this complaint as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking directions against the OP-Bank to compensation of Rs.55,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 05.10.2015 till realization in the interest of justice and equity.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    The complainant submits that, the complainant is the employee of BSNL Company at Chikkaballapura.  On 28.08.2006 complainant raised a personal loan of Rs.95,000/- from the OP-Bank and had paid all the monthly installments regularly at the tune of Rs.2,750/- per month up to the year 2004 and had cleared the entire loan amount.  For which, OP-Bank had also issued a Clearance Certificate dated: 09.05.2014 after receiving the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant.

 

(b)    The complainant further submits that, in the 1^st week of October-2010, complainant raised further personal loan from the OP-Bank, but to the shock of the complainant the OP-Bank had intimated that, the complainant is liable to pay due balance of Rs.55,000/- towards old loan outstanding amount.  The complainant without any option had paid Rs.55,000/- to the OP-Bank.

 

(c)    Further complainant’s submits that, though complainant had already cleared the entire loan raised by him and the manager of the OP-Bank had also issued clearance certificate to the complainant stating that, “the loan account stands closed in April-2014 itself and there is no liability outstanding against the said loan as on today i.e., 09.05.2014”, the question of repay the balance amount with regard to the earlier loan does not arise.

 

(d)    Complainant further submitted that, he is suffering from cancer and for taking treatment he raised 2^nd loan with the OP-Bank, but at this juncture, the OP-Bank illegally creating some forged documents had collected excess amount from the complainant which is nothing but deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint.

 

03.   In response to the notice the learned counsel for the OP appeared and filed its version by resisting the claim of the complainant in toto:-

 

(a)    The OP submits that, the allegation made at para-3 of the complaint is true and correct.  In the same Para with regard to the allegation that, the complainant had regularly paid the monthly installments is denied as false.  The further allegation made in the complaint that, after paying the entire loan amount the OP-Bank had issued clearance certificate is false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. 

 

(b)    Further OP-Bank had submitted that, the complainant is a chronic defaulter in making payment of the loan liability and he is the willful defaulter in making payment of the loan and the said loan liability was closed under OTS scheme and as on the date of closing the loan the outstanding is Rs.43,530/- with interest and the OP-Bank is herewith furnishing the entire account extract of the complainant.  The OP-Bank is also submitting the RBI norms and bank circulation of credit facilities to the OTS beneficiaries.  So contending, the OP-Bank has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs. 

 

04.   On 24.04.2017 the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted affidavit evidence of the complainant by way examination-in-chief.  On 05.06.2017 the learned counsel appearing for OP-Bank has submitted affidavit evidence of one Mr. N.S. Suneel, S/o. N.R.Santhu Rama Rao, the Manager of the OP-Bank. 

 

05.   On 04.07.2017 the learned counsel appearing for the OP-Bank has submitted a Memo with S.B. Account and Loan account extracts pertaining to the complainant.  On 01.08.2017 learned counsel appearing for OP-Bank has submitted another Memo with salary recovery statement sent by the employer (BSNL) of the complainant and further OP-Bank has submitted that, they have re-credited the amount of Rs.55,000/- which was collected from the complainant on 05.10.2015 from his S.B. Account No.0539101028144 along with interest as per the S.B. Account.  On 08.08.2017 the learned counsel appearing for OP-Bank has submitted another Memo with account extract of the complainant.

 

06.   Therefore the points that do arise for consideration in the above case are:-

(A)  Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service against the OP?

(B) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for ?

(C)  What order?

 

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

POINT (A) & (B):      In the Affirmative.

 

POINT (C):               As per final order for

the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT (A) & (B):-

 

08.   Admittedly the complainant had availed a loan from the OP-Bank loan account bearing No.0539601005558.  The contention of the complainant is that, the complainant had cleared the loan in the year 2014 and in this regard the Manager of the OP-Bank had also issued clearance certificate dated: 09.05.2014 to the complainant.  The above said loan account was also closed on April-2014 itself.  Hence there is no liability in respect of any outstanding loan amount against the said loan as on today.  Thereafter the complainant approached the OP-Bank for taking personal loan by giving necessary application form with relevant documents, but the OP-Bank had agreed to sanction the loan with a condition stating that, the complainant has to pay balance amount of Rs.55,000/- towards the earlier outstanding loan amount to the OP-Bank.  Hence the complainant paid Rs.55,000/- to the OP-Bank.  The complainant further submitted that, the entire loan amount was cleared in April-2014 itself in this regard the OP-Bank Manager had also issued a clearance certificate to the complainant.  The question of repayment of the balance amount in respect of earlier loan does not arise.  Hence the complainant approached the OP-Bank on several times, but the OP-Bank has failed to rectify the mistake and not returned the amount.  Hence the complainant approached this Forum.

 

09.   Admittedly when the case is pending before this Forum, the OP-Bank has rectified the mistake by remitting the amount of Rs.55,000/- along with Rs.3,853/- to the complainant’s account on 01.08.2017.  However the learned counsel appearing for complainant submits that, though the complainant has received Rs.55,000/- plus Rs.3,853/- from the OP-Bank, but the Ops have not paid the litigation costs and compensation towards mental agony suffered by the complainant. 

 

10.   On perusal of the documents produced by the complainant it clearly reveals that, after filing this complaint though OP-Bank has refunded the amount of Rs.55,000/- with Rs.3,853/- the complainant being a cancer patient would have suffered lot of inconvenience and hardship because of the mistake committed by the OP-Bank by demanding excess amount of Rs.55,000/- towards sanction of 2^nd loan.  The OP being a well known reputed Bank should be diligent while making transactions with its customers/consumers.  Here in this case the complainant has suffered mental agony for the negligent act committed by the OP-Bank.  Hence we hold that, the OP-Bank is liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with litigation costs. 

 

POINT (C):-

11.   In view of the above discussions, we proceed to pass the following:-

 

 

04.09.2017:-

COMPLAINANT/BY SRI.

OPPOSITE PARTY/BY SRI.

ORDER

01.   The complaint is allowed-in-part.  The OP-Bank is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant along with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-.

 

02.   The OP-Bank is also directed to comply the above said order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

 

03.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 04^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT