Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/1844

SMT.SUSHEEL SAXENA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UCO BANK - Opp.Party(s)

BY POST

17 May 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1844 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 20.10.2016 passed in C.C.No.373/2014 by District Commission, Ujjain) 

 

SMT. SUSHIL SAXENA,

W/O LATE DR.A.K.SAXENA,

14, DHARAMSHALA ROAD,

SHIVPURI (M.P.)                                                                                            … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

UCO BANK, KAMRI MARG BRANCH,

UJJAIN (M.P.)                                                                                               …. RESPONDENT.  

                      

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                    :         PRESIDING MEMBER

           HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY            :            MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA       :          MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Arvind Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Ranvir Singh appears on behalf of Shri Ajay Pandey, learned counsel

for the respondent.

 

 O R D E R

(Passed On 17.05.2023)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:

 

                  This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) is directed against the order dated 20.10.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ujjain (for short the ‘District Commission’) in C. C. No. 373/2014 whereby the District Commission dismissed the complaint filed by her.

 

-2-

2.                Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant took house loan of Rs.6,50,000/- from the opposite party-bank on 27.06.2009 which was to be repaid till 27.06.2013 in 48 EMI. Two FDRs of Shri Anil Kumar Saxena for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,35,000/- were deposited towards security. It is submitted that in December-2012 she fell ill and defaulted in making payment of 2-3 instalments and the loan account became overdue. It is alleged that without any intimation to the complainant, the bank adjusted the amount of FDRs towards the overdue amount of loan account. Aggrieved complainant therefore, filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party-bank before the District Commission, seeking relief.

3.                The District Commission proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party/respondent-bank and therefore no reply to the complaint has been filed.   

4.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the opposite party-bank without any intimation to the complainant adjusted the amount of FDRs towards overdue of loan account in March-2013 which is against the law. There was an agreement to repay the loan amount till 27.06.2013 but the bank had adjusted the amount in March-2013. The District Commission without considering the facts and documents available

-3-

on record erred in dismissing the complaint. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order be set-aside and the complaint be allowed.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent-bank argued that the bank as per rules adjusted the amount of FDRs towards outstanding loan amount and while doing so, the bank has not committed any deficiency in service. The District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint.  

7.                The complainant/appellant has filed her affidavit along with four documents and bank statements.

8.                On perusal of the complaint, affidavit and documents as also the impugned order we find that the complainant had to repay the loan amount in 48 EMIs but when there was default in making payment of instalments, the bank adjusted the amount of FDRs deposited as security towards the outstanding loan amount. The complainant herself has filed a letter dated 17.06.2013 of the opposite party bank addressed to the complainant stating that your loan account was overdue and as per your instructions after adjusting the amount of FDRs, the said loan account was closed. You are requested to collect the Registry and other documents from the bank as early as possible.

9.                Thereafter, the complainant vide letter dated 02.04.2014 requested the Branch Manager, of the bank that all the dues were deposited in the loan account till March-2013 and you are therefore requested to return

-4-

the registered sale-deed and other documents. On 02.06.2015 again the bank wrote a letter to the complainant stating that in reference to your letter addressed to Zonal Manager, you are hereby informed to collect original registered sale-deed from the bank in working hours.

10.              From the aforesaid letters filed by the complainant herself, more particularly, the letter dated 17.06.2013 of the opposite party bank addressed to the complainant wherein it is stated that your loan account was overdue and as per your instructions after adjusting the amount of FDRs, the said loan account was closed. You are requested to collect the Registry and other documents from the bank as early as possible, we find that the adjustment of the amount of FDRs towards outstanding amount of loan account by the bank cannot be said to be illegal. We find that there is no deficiency in service on part of bank in doing so. The District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint.

11.              In view of the above discussion, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the District Commission. Accordingly, it is affirmed.

12.              In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

             (A. K. Tiwari)     (Dr. Srikant Pandey)   (D. K. Shrivastava)

     Presiding Member          Member                       Member