28.10.2024

ORDER ON ADMISSION

MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

        The Appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal against the order dated 30.05.2024 passed in CC.No.115/2023 by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Dharwad which directed this appellant to pay an amount of Rs.1,61,469/- along with interest @8%p.a from 30.09.2022 till realization and also directed to pay  compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for inconvenience mental agony and litigation expenses amount of Rs.10,000/-.

        2.     It was noticed that Account General had addressed a letter to Civil Judge and JMFC Siraguppa       dt: 28.08.2003 which reads that withheld D.C.R.G amount of Rs.44,000/- was released subject to recovery of the same and crediting it to the Government Account and on the same day on 27.10.2003, the District Treasury Dharwad has forwarded a letter to this appellant bank for taking further action and crediting the amount of Rs.44,000/- to the Government Account.  Later on, 01.08.2012 again the Account General Bengaluru has requested this appellant bank to confirm whether an amount of Rs.44,000/- was credited to the Government account or not.  Basing on the said  the DTO Dharwad issued a letter dt: 26.02.2013 requesting appellant bank to send demand draft for Rs.44,000/- but appellant had not complied all these requirements made by Account General Bangalore. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and sought for payment of Rs.1,61,469/- which was demanded by Account General towards the loan balance amount of Rs.44,000/- along with accrued interest.  The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay the above said amount along with compensation.  Aggrieved by the same the appellant before this Commission.

        3.     The learned advocate for appellant submits that the complainant has failed to prove that the letter forwarded by Account General and District Treasury Dharwad was served on them.  Infact, the letters forwarded was not at all served on them and even they have no knowledge whether an amount of Rs.44,000/- was not paid due to lack of record in this regard they wrote a letter dt: 11.04.2019 and requested the complainant to submits further requisition.  Accordingly, the letter was received stating that the complaint is due of 1,61,469/- but, the complainant had not established any deficiency in service on part of this appellant but the District Commission without considering the said facts had allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay the above said amount.  The order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and dismiss the complaint in the interest of justice and equity.    

4.     Perused the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal and other documents produced, we noticed that the complainant had availed housing loan during the service and at the time of retirement, an amount of Rs.44,000/-was due to be paid by him and while settling his pension D.C.R.G had withheld an amount of Rs.44,000/- by the Account General Office subsequently, the direction was given to this Opposite Party  to credit an amount of Rs.44,000/- to the Government Account.  Even though the letter sent by the Account General and District Treasury Dharwad, appellant bank has not credited to the same to the Account General Bangalore.  No reasons were assigned before District Commission why the said amount was not credited.

5.     The learned advocate for appellant before this Commission submits that the letters are not at all served on them.  The said submission are not acceptable because the letters are issued officially by the Account General to this appellant bank.  Instead of complying the request made by Account General, the Opposite Party  without any reasons had not credited.  The complainant when approached he came to know that an amount of Rs.44,000/- was not adjusted to the loan account and direction was given to pay Rs.1,61,469/- with accrued interest and other charges, then only the complainant approached the District Commission and sought for payment of the said amount.  Without any fault on side of complainant he was received a letter for a payment of the said amount.  It is a clear case of negligence on the part of appellant bank for not obeying the request made by the Account General Bangalore and District Treasury Dharwad.  The District Commission after noticing all these had appreciated the facts and allowed the complaint.  We found it is a clear case of negligence on the part of Opposite Party.  Mere submission of non-service of letter issued by Account General Bangalore and District Treasury are not valid grounds to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.  The complainant need not establish the service of letters to the appellant.  As such no valid grounds urged before this Commission to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.  The order passed by the District Commission is just and proper no interference is required. Accordingly,

O R D E R

The appeal is dismissed.No order as to costs.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission to pay the same to the complainant.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.

(Sunita .C. Bagewadi)                         (Ravishankar)      

         Member                                      Judicial Member

ARD*