| First Appeal No. A/1574/2016 | | ( Date of Filing : 08 Jul 2016 ) | | (Arisen out of Order Dated 09/06/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/28/2013 of District Raichur) |
| | | | 1. Syndicate Bank Raichur Main Branch, | | Leharwadi, Near Mahaveer Circle, Raichur-584 101, Karnataka State Rep. by its Chief Manager, Sri Bijay Shankar Jha, S/o Sri Mahadev Jha |
| ...........Appellant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Y. Amarappa | | S/o Sri Shivashankarappa, aged about 51 years, R/at No.3-3-1-3, Brahamanwadi,Beroonquilla, Raichur-584 101.Karnataka State |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | Dtd.06.06.2024 A/1574 & 1688/2016 COMMON ORDER BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist& Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER. - These are the appeals filed U/s.15 of CPA 1986 by parties to CC/28/2013 on the file of Raichuru District Forum aggrieved by the order dtd.09.06.2016. (Parties to the appeal henceforth are referred to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission).
- The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard the learned counsels. Now the point that arise for consideration of this Commission would be whether the impugned order dtd.09.06.2016 passed in CC/28/2013 does call for an interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo?
- One Mr.Y.Amarappa/Complainant in CC/28/2013 has raised a consumer complaint against OP bank as he has availed two loans under two separate loan accounts, which were already closed, yet, OP has issued notice dtd.25.09.2012, calling him to pay Rs.2,63,671/- under new loan account no.1800/771/75 for old loan account no.1800/722/3472, which has to be recalled and for rendering deficiency in service, he has to be compensated. However, the OP bank contested the complaint contending that there are two loan accounts under loan account no.1800/722/3472 and 1800/722/2215, of which, the Complainant has repaid the loan a/c bearing no.1800/722/3472, which is under new loan a/c no.1800/771/75 as stated in his complaint. But he is still unpaid and as on 25.09.2012 was due to the tune of Rs.2,63,671/- and denied the allegations as to rendering deficiency in service with its customer.
- In view of rival contentions of the respective parties, the Commission held an enquiry by receiving affidavit evidence and documents, proceeded to allow the complaint in part and directed OP to pay Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant within two months along with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of filing complaint till realisation. It is this order being assailed in this appeal by the OP/banker, and for not granting the reliefs in so far as withdrawal of the notice dtd.25.09.2012, the Complainant has preferred an appeal and sought relief to allow the complaint as he was prayed in his complaint.
- The OP/Appellant has placed loan application submitted by the Complainant along with Confirmation of Creation of Second/Subsequent equitable mortgage, Guarantee Agreement, Certificate issued by Asst., Administrator of Co-operative Societies, Ledger extract for the loan a/c no.18007220002215, Ledger extract of the account no.18002200043760 which pertains to his SB a/c is nothing to do with the loan accounts involved in this complaint. Learned counsel for OP bank/Appellant submits that statement of loan account no.18007220003472 from 01.01.2006 to 05.07.2016 discloses that loan amount of Rs.2 lakhs, instalment amount of Rs.4,741.38, date of maturity 30.09.2012 and as on 30.06.2016 the Complainant/Y.Amarappa is due an amount of Rs.2,64,219.85, which in fact was received as Ex-R5 by the District Forum under new account no.1800/771/75, was rightly considered by the District Forum and the District Forum by recording sound reasons, rightly rejected the prayer of the Complainant to withdraw the notice dtd.25.09.2012 for the due loan amount of Rs.2,63,671/- under new loan a/c no.1800/771/75, corresponds to old loan a/c no.1800/722/3472, yet by showing sympathy to the Complainant DF awarded Rs.20,000/- as compensation which in our view is not correct, since as on the date of disbursement of the loan and as per Ex-R5, OP banker has shown the Complainant was dueto the tune of Rs.2,63,671/-.
- In the above such view of the matter, we proceed to allow the appeal filed by OP in A/1574/2016 and dismissed the A/1688/2016 filed by the Complainant and as a result ordered to dismiss CC/28/2013 on the file of Raichuru District Forum with no order as to cost.
- The amount in deposit is directed to be refund to the OP bank /Appellant in A/1574/2016 with proper identification by their advocate.
- Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.
Lady Member Judicial Member *NS* | |
