::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BIDAR::

                                                                       C.C. No.63/2022.

                                                                                                                                     Date of filing:12.08.2022.

                                                            Date of disposal:31.03.2023.

P R E S E N Ts:-    

                        (1) Shri. Mabu Saheb H.Chabbi,                                                                                                                                       

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

                                                          President.,

(2)Kum. Kavita,

                                                M.A.,LL.B.,(Spl.),

                                                 Member.

         (3) Shri.Thriyambakeshwara,                                                                       

                                        B.A.,LL.B.,(Spl.), 

                                               Member.

COMPLAINANT/S                    Kishanrao S/o Bhaurao Saigaonkar,

                                                      Age:67 years, Occ: Agriculture and 
                                                      Advocate,R/o Village Saigaon,

                                                      Tq:Bhalki dist:Bidar, Now Residing at Bidar     
                                                      Near Forest Nursary KPTCL Road Bidar.                                                                        

                                                         (Inperson.)                                                                 

                                V/s

OPPONENT/S        

                   1. The Manager,

                     Karnataka Gramin Bank

                    Main Branch Bidar

                    on Bidar Latur Road.

                                                        (Ex-parte.)

                                                                          :: JUD G M E N T::

By. Sri. Mabu Saheb H.Chabbi,. President.

The complaint has been filed by complainant under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the opponent bank for the deficiency of service by deducting amount as loan recovery from the complainant’s S.B. account.  Hence, passed the following judgement.

Brief facts of the complaint.

The brief facts of the complaint in nut-shell are summarized as follows: -

1.         The complainant is having S.B. Account bearing Account No.11087100000033 at OP bank.  There was a balance of Rs.35,794.14 in the complainant’s account at OP bank, but the OP bank has wrongly and illegally deducted an amount of Rs.35,794/- from the account of complainant on 31.03.2022, by showing as loan recovery.  In fact, the said deduction made by OP bank without the knowledge and behind the back of the complainant.  The complainant never obtained any loan from any branch of the Karnataka bank.  Even, if there is loan then the OP bank had to issue notice to the person who became defaulter and file recovery suit against such person, but in this case the OP bank has not given any notice to the complainant, it clearly goes to show that, OP has wrongly and illegally deducted the said amount from the account of complainant which amounts to deficiency of service to the complainant by the OP.  A representation also been given to the OP by the complainant, but the OP has not given any reply to the representation of complainant.  Hence, complaint filed against OP for compensation and sought direction to credit an amount of Rs.35,794/- to the complainants account.

2.         The notice to the OP issued by this commission received by the OP but OP did not appear before this commission, hence, OP placed ex-parte and it is ex-parte order against OP.

Evidence of complainant.

3.         The complainant has submitted his evidence affidavit as per P.W.1 and reiterated the facts of the complaint.  The documents produced by the complainant and got marked 03 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.03 on behalf of complainant those are as follows,

      1.    Ex.P.1-Copy of statement of account pertaining to complainant account at OP bank dated 02.07.2022.

2.     Ex.P.2-Copy of representation given by complainant to the OP bank Manager dated 26.07.2022.
3.    Ex.P.3-Copy of pass book pertaining to the complainant.

Points/Issues.

4.         Heard the arguments advanced by the complainant.  From the pleadings and documents of the complainant, the points that arose for our consideration before this Commission are as below. 

1. Whether the complainant proves that, he is consumer to OP and further proves the deficiency of service from the OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief sought in the complaint?
3. What orders? 

5.         Our answers to the points raised above are as follows: -

1. In the affirmative.
2. In the affirmative.
3. As per the final order.

6.         In order to decide the complaint issues, this commission discussed points/issues No.1 and 2 altogether for discussion as each points are inter related to each other- as follows.

7.         The complainant has filed his evidence affidavit and noted as P.W.1 further he has produced documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 in support of his case.  The case of the complainant is that, the OP bank has deducted the amount of Rs.35,794/- as a loan recovery on 31.03.2022 from the account of complainant at OP bank, without giving notice to the complainant.  In fact the complainant never obtained any loan from the OP bank or any bank at Karnataka. To substantiate his plea the complainant has produced the statement of account as per Ex.P.1.  The entry shown in Ex.P.1 that an amount of Rs.35,794/- was debited on 31.03.2022 by mentioning loan recovery from the account of complainant by OP bank.  The complainant has pleaded that, he has not obtained any loan form the bank of OP or from any bank in Karnataka.

8.         The OP bank has not appeared and submitted his written version despite of service of notice issued by this commission.  The complainant has also given Ex.P.2, representation to the OP bank on 26.07.2022 and the same has been acknowledged by OP bank on the same date, but for that representation also the OP bank has not replied or complied the deficiency of service sought by complainant.  When the OP has not replied either to the representation given by complainant or to the notice issued by this commission, then it is presumed that, he has no objection to the case of the complainant by the OP bank.           

9.         The document produced by the complainant as per Ex.P.3 the copy of pass book showing that, the complainant got S.B. Account at Op bank.  In view of Ex.P.1 statement of account and Ex.P.3 copy of pass book having account at OP bank, clearly goes to show that, the complainant is consumer to the OP bank.

10.       The OP bank might have a statutory right to set off by appropriating the credit balance in one account of the customer towards sum due to him by the customer in another account in order to arrive at the net sum due, but the Op bank has not furnished any documents to show that, the complainant is due to any loan from the complainant.  Mere entry showing  “loan recovery” in Ex.P.1 does not sufficient to hold that, the complainant has got loan at any  branch of Op bank without furnishing the particulars of loan due from the complainant.  If at all OP bank having any dues/loan with it he ought to have replied to the legal notice to the complainant at Ex.P.2 by showing reason of deduct which is not done by OP in the instant case in hand.  Even, after receipt of summons by this Commission, he ought to have substantiated his action of deduction from  the S.B.Account of complainant.  Therefore, the unilateral Act of OP for having deducted above shown amount from the complainants account that, too with behind back of complainant without issuing any prior notice and without there being any dues/loans certainly amounts to unfair trade practice in the eyes of law.  In view of the above discussion, the complainant has proved the deficiency of service from the OP bank by deducting the amount of Rs.35,794/- from the S.B.Account of complainant without showing the loan from which account he owe to the bank in Ex.P.1 entry dated 31.03.2022.  Hence, we are of the considered opinion that, the point No.1 and 2 answered in the affirmative in favor of complainant and proceed to pass the following.

::ORDER::

The complaint u/s 35 of CP Act2019, filed by the complainant against OP is hereby allowed in part.

The Op is hereby directed to credit the amount of Rs.35,794/- along with 9% interest from the date of deduction on 31.03.2022, to the complainants S.B.Account No.11087100000033 within 45 days from the date of this order. 

The OP is further directed to pay compensation to the complainant for his sufferance and mental agony for Rs.10,000/- and litigation charges for Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.                       

            Intimate the parties accordingly.

 (Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Commission on this 31^stday of March-2023).

Documents produced by the complainant.

1. Ex.P.1-Copy of statement of account pertaining to complainant account at OP bank dated 02.07.2022.
2. Ex.P.2-Copy of representation given by complainant to the OP bank Manager dated 26.07.2022.
3. Ex.P.3-Copy of pass book pertaining to the complainant.

Document produced by the Opponent.

            -Nil-

Witness examined.

Complainant.

P.W.1- Kishanrao S/o Bhaurao Saigaonkar,               (complainant)

Opponent.

-Nil-