(Delivered on 21/12/2021)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1.         Appellant- Nana Mahindre has preferred the present appeal feeling aggrieved by the order dated 04/01/2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Yavatmal in Consumer Complaint No. CC/14/208 by which  the complaint filed by the complainant came to be dismissed.  (Appellant and respondent shall hereinafter  be referred as per  their  original  status)

2.         Short facts leading to filing of the present appeal may be narrated as under,

            Complainant –Mr. Nana Tukarma Mahindre has claimed that  he was resident  of Kalsa, Taluka Digras, District Yavatmal and  had purchased one tractor  bearing No. MH-29/R-9264 of  Swaraj Compnay by taking loan from the O.P.- State Bank of India, Brach Harsul, Taluka Digras, District Yavatmal for the purpose  of agricultural  operation and  interest was fixed  at  11% p.a. The complainant  has contended that  after taking  the loan he had paid an amount of Rs. 55,000/- on 02/11/2009, Rs. 50,000/- on 02/12/2010, Rs. 40,000/- on 13/05/2010, Rs. 2,00,000/- on 06/03/2012,  and another Rs.4,00,000/- on 24/03/2012.  The complainant  further  paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 12/07/2012 and Rs. 50,000/-  on 28/08/2012 total amounting to  Rs.6,95,000/-. Complainant  has alleged that  on despite payment  of this  amount the O.P. namely  State Bank of India had transferred an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 29/07/2011 which was kept  in fixed deposit. On 18/01/2013 when  the complainant  visited  the O.P- Bank he was informed  that  an amount  of Rs. 39,457/- was still outstanding  against the complainant. Complainant  has also alleged that   the rate of interest  was also  increased  from time to time.  Complainant then  issued a letter  to the O.P.-Bank to return the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which  was transferred  from his saving  account  but there was  no response. The complainant  therefore was left no option  but to file the present complaint  under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service.

 3.        O.P. appeared and resisted the complaint by filing written version on record.  The O.P. has admitted that the complainant had paid sum of Rs. 4,95,000/- but  has denied  that the complainant  has paid Rs. 6,95,000/-.  The O.P. has further  contended that  the interest  was charged as per the guide lines  and direction issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The O.P. has  contended  that  the  amount of Rs. 1,25,252/- was transferred  on 29/07/2011 as  complainant   was not paying  the amount despite  demands. The O.P. has categorically denied  that the  complainant  had paid  Rs. 2,00,000/- each  on  two occasions. The O.P. has contended that allegations levelled  by the complainant   were not tenable  in law and there was no deficiency  in service  and so the complaint  deserves to be  dismissed.

4.         The  learned  District Consumer Commission, Yavatmal  thereafter  went through the evidence affidavit  as well documents  filed by both the parties on record.  The learned District Consumer Commission, Yavatmal also went through  the written notes of argument  filed by the complainant as well as O.P.  The learned District Consumer Commission, Yavatmal  has given findings  that  the complainant  had failed to establish that  the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- each came to be deposited towards loan amount on 24/03/2012. The learned District Consumer Commission, Yavatmal has  not  accepted  the contentions  advanced  by the complainant  and has also held that  there was  no  deficiency  in service on the part of the O.P.- State Bank of India, Harsul branch. Accordingly  the learned District Consumer Commission, Yavatmal proceeded to dismiss the  complaint by  judgment  and order dated 04/01/2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Yavatmal. Against this order dated 04/01/201 the present  appellant /complainant  has come up in appeal.

5.         We have heard Mr. Aade, learned advocate for the appellant  and  Mr. B.G. Deshpande, learned advocate for the respondent. We have  also carefully gone through  the documents placed on record by both the parties.

6.         It is not in dispute that the present complainant – Mr. Nana Mahindre resident  of  Kalsa, Taluqa Digras, District Yavatmal had purchased one tractor bearing  No. MH-29/R-9264 by taking loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the  O.P.- State Bank of India, Branch Harsul and interest was  fixed  at  11% p. a.   It is also not in dispute that  the complainant  had repaid an amount of Rs. 55,000/-, 50,000/-, 40,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- on 24/03/2012.

7.         Mr. Ade, learned advocate for the appellant  has taken a specific plea that the learned District Consumer Commission, Yavatmal had not taken into consideration  the fact that  on 24/03/2012 the present  appellant /complainant  had deposited  cash  in the  respondent bank for repayment  of tractor loan but the respondent  bank slip dated 24/03/2012 was not at all taken into consideration  and learned District Consumer Commission, Yavatmal had committed  an error in giving finding that  the said deposit  slip/receipt dated 24/03/2012 is the same slip issued  by the respondent  bank of the entry of transfer  of amount from  Saving Bank Account No. 30363602001 to loan Account No.30367769384.

8.         On the other hand   Mr. B.G. Deshpande, learned advocate for the respondent –State Bank Of India has rebutted all the contentions and has submitted firstly that the appellant was having two accounts namely Saving Account No. 30363602001 and Loan Account No.30367769384 as per bank records. The learned advocate for the respondent has also contended that only an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was deposited by the appellant  as per statement  of account but there were  two entries  of the same amount. According to the learned advocate for the respondent  the amount of Rs. 30487/- was still  outstanding  on 06/07/2019 against the appellant /complainant and findings given by the learned District Consumer Commission, Yavatmal were not at all erroneous  in nature.

9.           Mr. Aade, learned advocate for the appellant has drawn our attention  to the various documents  on record  including  statement of accounts as well as copies of receipts dated 06/03/2012 and 24/03/2012. The learned advocate for the appellant  has specifically  drawn our attention  to copy of receipt  dated 06/03/2012 regarding  deposits of amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- which  according to the appellant was deposited  in the saving account of appellant but was wrongly transferred in the Loan Account bearing No. 30367769384.   Entire dispute in the present appeal revolves around this entry and payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- by the appellant.

10.       However,  if we turn to the judgment and order  passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Yavatmal, the learned District Consumer Commission, Yavatmal in para 4  has elaborately  dealt with  this aspect and has given  finding that the present  appellant has not placed on record  any documents  or receipts  regarding  payment  of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 06/03/2012 and no such receipt  is forth coming. The learned District Consumer Commission, Yavatmal has also  observed  that  the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was deposited  not in the loan account but in the saving  account whereas  other  receipts  go to show that  the amounts were  deposited in the loan account. The learned advocate for the appellant has taken a plea that the appellant had deposited extra amount towards the loan account and thereby had satisfied  the  loan account. The appellant  has taken  a plea that the respondent /O.P. namely State Bank of India has not taken  any  plea that the receipt  dated 24/03/2012 was either false or  fabricated. No doubt the respondent /O.P.-State Bank of India has not taken  any such  plea specifically in the written version   but we find that  the appellant /complainant  has also  not placed  on record any other receipts or   material  to show that  any extra payment  was made  towards the loan account as suggested by the appellant or that  O.P. had recovered amount unlawfully. During the course of argument  the learned advocate for the respondent  has also drawn our attention  to the loan statement  and same  also does not  show the   deposit  of any extra amount. On the  other  hand, the respondent  has not only placed on record the statement  of account but has also  given  details  of the entire  amount paid  by the appellant /complainant towards  loan account from time to time. We find that  the learned District Consumer Commission, Yavatmal  has elaborately  dealt with  all  these aspects regarding  payment  made by the appellant. Further,  the learned District Consumer Commission, Yavatmal has also dealt with  other  contentions  raised by the  appellant / complainant  and given findings which  cannot be termed  as erroneous or perverse in nature.

11.       In the light of the aforesaid  discussion we  find ourselves  unable  to accept  the contentions raised by  Mr. Aade, learned advocate for the appellant  and so  we hold that  the appeal  is devoid of any substance  and so we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

i.          Appeal is dismissed.

ii.          No order as to costs.

iii.         Copy of order be furnished to both of parties, free of cost.