BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 31^st DAY OF MARCH 2022

                                   ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. It is the complaint under Section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 (herein after referred as an Act) to direct the OP to furnish the full details as to how the OP has arrived at such a huge figure of Rs.7,37,850/- as outstanding balance and direct the OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- compensation.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant has availed housing loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the OP under housing loan account No.1418089990001553 on 23.01.2010.  The complainant has paid lumpsum amount of Rs.4,20,000/- to the OP.  But, OP still insisting the complainant to pay Rs.7,37,850/-.

3. It is further case of the complainant, despite legal notice dated 09.07.2015, the OP failed to furnish details of dues.  This act of the OP amounts to deficiency of service.  Therefore, OP is liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

4. After receipt of notice, the OP appears and files objection.  The OP contends that the complainant has availed housing loan of Rs.5,00,000/- by opening account No.141808990001553 in the year 2002 not on 23.01.2010.  The complainant has not paid lumpsum amount of Rs.4,20,000/-.  In fact, the complainant has made payment of Rs.3,70,470/- only in installment.  As on 29.02.2016 a sum of Rs.8,36,230/- was due from the complainant.  The complainant is not entitled to any relief as complaint is not maintainable.

5. Both parties have filed affidavit evidence in support of their contentions.  But, no argument is advanced on behalf of both the parties despite sufficient opportunity granted to them.

6. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

7. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  In the negative.

      Point No.2:- In the negative.

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

8. Point No.1:  These two points are co-related to each other, therefore, these two points have been taken for common discussion to avoid unnecessary repetition of the reasonings.
9. Both the parties in support of their respective contention have filed affidavit evidence.  According to the complainant and her affidavit evidence, she availed housing loan of Rs.5,00,000/- in the year 2010.  But, the OP denies this contention.  But, contends that the complainant has availed housing loan of Rs.5,00,000/- in the year 2002.  But, it is admitted fact that the complainant had availed housing loan of Rs.5,00,000/-.  The question arises whether complainant is right in saying that she availed housing loan of Rs.5,00,000/- in the year 2010 or complainant availed this loan in the year 2002 as contended by the OP.
10. The complainant has produced loan statement commencing from 01.02.2010 ending on 31.12.2014. Even this statement is taken into consideration, opening balance on 01.02.2010 was Rs.5,15,355/-.  It means the statement produced by the complainant about housing loan account is not correct.  Whereas the OP has produced the entire housing loan statement commencing from 30.10.2002 till 29.02.2016.  The loan statement produced by the OP clearly indicates that loan amount was Rs.5,00,000/- and it was disbursed in the year 2002 by installment.  Therefore, complainant is not right in saying that she availed housing loan only in the year 2010. 
11. According to the complainant, she has paid lumpsum amount of Rs.4,20,000/- towards loan.  But, copies of the payment receipt and statement produced by the complainant do not indicate the payment of lumpsum amount of Rs.4,20,000/-.  In fact, the complainant has paid loan in installments.  The statement produced by the OP clearly indicates that the complainant has paid in all Rs.3,23,000/-.  The OP has shown sum of Rs.8,36,236/- was due from the complainant on 29.02.2016.  The complainant has produced incomplete statement upto 31.12.2014 showing the balance of Rs.7,37,850/-. This complaint came to be filed on 29.09.2015.  The complainant has not produced upto date loan statement till filing of the complaint.  Even both statements produced by the complainant and OP are taken into consideration, they do not indicate that the complainant repaid loan of Rs.4,20,000/- in lumpsum.  Therefore, complainant is not right in saying that she repaid loan of Rs.4,20,000/- to the loan account.  The complainant has produced the loan statement from 01.02.2010 till 01.01.2015 which indicates how the balance is arrived.  The loan statement produced by the both parties indicate that on 01.01.2015 the outstanding balance loan amount is Rs.7,37,850/-.  The complainant has obtained the bank statement showing the outstanding amount of Rs.7,37,850/-.  The similar outstanding balance is also shown in the bank statement produced by the Op.  the complainant has obtained bank statement prior to filing this complaint which indicates how the OP bank arrived amount of Rs.737,850/- as the balance on 01.01.2015.  Under such circumstances, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.  When there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP, the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs including the compensation.  Therefore, we answer these two points against the complainant.   
12. Point No.3:- Having regard to the discussion made in preceding paragraph on point Nos.1 and 2 and complainant having failed to prove all her contention, complaint requires to be dismissed.   We proceed to pass the following

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is dismissed without costs.
2. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 31^st March, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-

Documents produced by the OP which are as follows:-