Orissa

Gajapati

CC/16/2021

Sri PRAFULLA PANIGRAHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

The State Bank Manager - Opp.Party(s)

SELF

30 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GAJAPATI,PARALAKHEMUNDI
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/2021
( Date of Filing : 13 Dec 2021 )
 
1. Sri PRAFULLA PANIGRAHI
S/o.:-Late Binod Panigrahi, At.:-Badapada,
GAJAPATI
ODISHA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The State Bank Manager
At:-Khajuripada
Gajapati
Odisha
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Rajendra Kumar Panda PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Saritri Pattanaik MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 30 May 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Brief Facts of the Case:-

                          This is a complaint dtd.13.12.2021 against the Opp.Party (herein after O.P.  Complainant in his petition stated that he had one loan account bearing No.30503351603 and STDR Account No.30490119706 with the O.Ps(Bank).  He had some outstanding towards his loan amount but the O.Ps willfully and negligently deducted more amount from his STDR account No.30490113706 and  the said amount transferred to the loan account No.30509951603 in unfair manner.  Further he stated that the amount deducted i.e Rs.55,206+2,000/-=Rs.57,206/-on dtd.12.08.2021 by the O.Ps aren’t as per actual debt as there is much difference in compare to the notice dtd.09.02.2021 and the documents in support of his contentions.  He further averred that R.Udyagiri Court (TLSC) ordered to deposit only Rs.15,000/- to clear up his debt,.  In the above issue he prayed the Commission to  direct the O.Ps for refund of surplus amount besides Rs.30,000/- towards compensation in lieu of his sufferings and expenses etc.

                         The O.P entered appearance and filed version with some documents which they relied in this case.  The complainant as well as the O.P adduced evidence in form of affidavit.

                          We perused the complaint, written version, evidence in affidavit and documents relied and filed by the complainant as well as the O.Ps.

           FINDINGS:-

                         We have taken into consideration the three documents filed by the complainant i.e notice of the O.Ps  dtd.11.01.2021 (Marked Anex.1) and dtd.09.02.2021 (Marked Anex.2) demanding repayment  TLSC notice directing the presence of the complainant on 10.04.2021(Marked Anex.3).  Similarly we have also taken into consideration the documents filed by the O.P i.e. Account statement from 1st August-2021 to 31st August-2021(Marked as Anex-4), STDR closure statement to the Rs.68,283/-(Marked as Anex.5) Notice of repayment of Bank dues by the Counsel of the O.Ps dtd.11.01.21 & 09.02.21 (Anex.1 & 2) to the complainant shows Rs.36,668/- on 09.02.21 standing due against the complainant to the loan account No.30503351603.

                          That the Taluka legal Service Authority (TLSC)(Anex.03) R.Udayagiri, Dist.Gajapati issued notice to the complainant showing the outstanding due is Rs.52,233/-as on 22.03.21to the loan account NO.30503351603(Anex.3).  How the TLSC came to know that the outstanding due Rs.52,233/- as on 22.03.21, it is only after the representation and submission of the papers by the O.Ps(Bank) beforethe TLSC.  There are clear cut discrepancy appear in the notice that how the outstanding due Rs.36,668/- on 09.02.21 grown to Rs.52,233/- on 22.03.21.  So, doubt arised that there is some misrepresentation by the O.Ps (Bank) before the TLSC.  Anex.5 the STDR shown the amount of Rs.68,283/- after closed on 11.08.21 and Anex.4 account statement shown there is debit of Rs.55,206/- on 11.08.21 from the loan account No.30503351603 after  the amount of Rs.68,283/- transferred from STDR Account No.30440119708 of the product STD-PUB IND UNI 181D-10 YRS after closure on 11.08.2021.  On perusal of written statement and evidence in affidavit of the O.Ps, it noticed that the O.Ps totally denied the averments of the complaint.  But could not show the Court how they deducted the amount of Rs.55,203/- from the STDR account on dtd.12.08.21 though the O.Ps it self send notice on dt.11.01.21/ 09.02.21 showing the outstanding dues is Rs.36,668/-.  The O.Ps also not apprised the Court about the amount of Rs.36,668/- on demand pay notice dtd.11.01.21 & 09.02.21 and amount of Rs.52,233/- shown in the notice dtd.22.03.21 of TLSC.

Hence, it is ordered:-

                                          In light of above discussion and findings the Commission held that the O.P had not taken serious views on the application of the complainant to the deduction of surplus amount from his STDR account No.30490119706 and hence the O.Ps are responsible for negligent duties/services and unfair trade practice towards the Complainant as such the Commission directs the O.Ps to revise and pay the surplus amount with usual bank interest which the O.P has already been taken within 35 days of receipt of this order  failing which 15% of interest P.A shall have to pay till the realization of the surplus amount. 

                                       Case is disposed off accordingly.

                                       A copy of this order be provided to all the parties at free of cost as mandated by the C.P Act 2019, or they may be downloaded same from confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of order received from this commission.

                                       File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

                         

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Rajendra Kumar Panda]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Saritri Pattanaik]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.