Haryana

StateCommission

A/206/2019

KISHORI LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

18 Apr 2023

ORDER

                                                    STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.206 of 2019

  Date of Instituion:27.02.2019

                Date of order:18.04.2023

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Kishori Lal S/o Sh.Mukh Ram R/o Mohalla Sainipura, Mohindergarh, Tehsil & Distt. Mohindergarh (Haryana).

…..Appellant

VERSUS

1.      Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Mohindergarh.

2.      Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business, G.T. Road, Panipat.

3.      Rajbir Ranga, posted as Field Officer, State Bank of India, Mukharia, Distt. Hoshiyarpur (Punjab).

4.      Ashwani S/o Sh.Kishori Lal S/o Sh.Mukhram
R/o Mohalla Sainipura, Mohindergarh, Distt. Mohindergarh (Haryana).

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                  

 

 

Present:-    Mr.Kishori Lal appellant in person.

                   Mr.Sanjeev K.Arora, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

                   (Service of respondent No.4 already dispensed with)

 

O R D E R

PER: S.P.SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

JUDGMENT

 

1.      The facts of the case  as per the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Mahendergarh (Now in short “District Commission”) record are:

          The complainants have applied for loan before the SBI for education purpose from the opposite party No.1 and opened joint saving bank account. The education loan of Rs.1,22,000/- was sanctioned by the OP No.1, however out of the same an amount to Rs.1,06,000/- only was disbursed to them, whereas interest was charged on the entire amount. The Ghost account bearing No.01191826 was also opened by official of OP No.1 and at the time of disbursing the loan, an amount of Rs.44,000/- was shown as being disbursed against the actual amount of Rs.31,500/-.  On 06.02.2007 an entry regarding Rs.7100/- was shown with regard to the issuance of demand draft in favour of ICFAI, but, complainant did not ask for any such demand draft. Another demand draft of Rs.16,000/- has also been shown to be issued by the officials  of OP No.1 Bank whereas the alleged draft was again not received by the college ever.   An amount of Rs.8900/- was deducted but amount of Rs.2000/- was deposited on 06.02.2006 in the account bearing NO.0159301826000 and rest of the same has not been shown as deposited. The complainants requested the Ops to refund the excess amount but Ops did not consider his genuine requests. Faced with this situation, he got issued legal notice dated 27.06.2014 to the Ops but all in vain.  Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, hence the complaint. 

2.      Notice was issued to the Ops. They filed joint written statement.   The Ops submitted that complainant applied for an  education loan, which was duly sanctioned and out of  Rs.1,22,000/-, Rs.1,13,321/- i.e. Rs.1,06,221/- was disbursed upto 16.12.2006 before CBS (Core Bank Solution) and Rs.7100/- was advanced to them on 06.02.2007 after CBS system.   Before CBS system, account bearing No.01593018260 was opened as term loan account and A/c No. 059301826000 was opened as interest account and a joint account bearing No.01190018260 was  saving account of the complainants. It was  denied that OP Bank has charged interest on the entire amount. An amount of Rs.31,500/- was credited in the joint saving account of the complainant after submitting the receipt of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.21500/- on 02.08.2005 and 10.08.2005 by them issued by Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India, Hyderabad and an amount of Rs.31,500/- was also credited in the joint saving account on 07.09.2005. A demand draft of Rs.12500/-  and Rs.16,000/- were also issued in favour of institution, ICFAI respectively. The above said draft was prepared by paying an amount of Rs.7100/- from the loan account and Rs.8900/- from saving account of complainant.  Neither the draft was cancelled nor returned by the complainant.  The complainant has deposited Rs.2000/- in the interest account. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint as prayed for.

3.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Narnaul has dismissed the complaint vide order dated 04.02.2019.

4.      Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the complainant-appellant has preferred the present appeal.

5.      This argument were advanced by Sh.Kishori Lal appellant in person and Sh.Sanjeev K.Arora, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. With their kind assistance the entire records have been properly perused and examined.

6.      It is pertinent to mention here that earlier a complaint bearing No.CC No.96 of 2015 was filed on 24.07.2015, which was dismissed in default on 12.05.2017. The complainant filed first appeal No.1578 of 2017, which was also dismissed  as withdrawn by this Commission vide order dated 10.05.2018 with liberty to file a fresh complaint before DCDRF, Narnaul. The complainants have filed the present complaint on 31.05.2018 before DCDRF, Narnaul, which was dismissed on 04.02.2019.

7.      It is admitted fact that the complainants have  applied education loan from the OP No.1.  It is also admitted fact that  the Bank has sanctioned the amount of Rs.1,22,000/- on account of education loan.   Perusal of the file revealed that the complainant got disbursed an amount of Rs.1,6,000/- before CBS and Rs.7100/- on 06.02.2007 after CBS system i.e. total amount of Rs.1,13,321/- has been shown by Ops Bank and on this amount only interest has been charged by the Bank. The complainants-appellant has not produced any evidence with regard to the bank having charged excessive interest on Rs.1,22,000/-.  Perusal of the account statement also revealed that  complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.2000/- in the interest account. The learned District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint as each and every amount as pointed out by complainant has duly been accounted for.

8.      Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant stands rejected having rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence, the appeal  stands dismissed.

9.      Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

10.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

11.    File be consigned to record room.

 

 

18th  April, 2022                                                                  S. P. Sood                                                                                                                Judicial Member

S.K (Pvt. Secy.)