Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/351

Lakhvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Ankit Bhatia Adv.

22 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:351 dated 18.07.2019.                                                         Date of decision: 22.04.2022. 

 

Lakhvir Singh S/o. Jaspal Singh, resident of H. No.13/3, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Street No.2, Near Ford Factory, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                              ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. State Bank of India, Haryana Civil Sectt., Sector-I, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.
2. Bajaj Finserve Ltd., 1^st and 2^nd Floor, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Opposite Police Station, Orient Cinema Road, Above Bank of India, Ludhiana-141002.                                                                                                                                                                  …..Opposite parties 

 

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         None.

For OP1                         :         None.

For OP2                         :         Sh. Sumit Jain, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of the unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that he was maintaining account No.20302120555 with OP1 for the last many years. The complainant availed loan facilities from OP2 for purchase of electronic and furniture items and has been regularly paying the installments through OP1. The entire amount stands paid and nothing is outstanding towards OP2. However, despite having repaid the entire loan, OP1 has been illegally and arbitrarily deducted an amount of Rs.295/-. OP1 has illegally deducted a sum of Rs.295/- from 03.07.2018 onwards. When the complainant visited OP1 branch about  debit entries of Rs.295/- each they started blaming OP2. In all, a sum of Rs.5015/- has been deducted from the account of the complainant. Regarding repayment of the loan, OP2 had issued no objection certificate dated 05.02.2019 to the complainant. The deduction of the amount of Rs.5015/- by the OPs amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.5015/- along with interest @12% per annum and compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.                Upon notice OP2 did not appear in the court despite service and was proceeded against exparte.

3.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP1, Mr. Ghansham, employee of OP1 appeared in person on 24.09.2019 but thereafter, nobody appeared on behalf of OP1.

4.                It is pertinent to mention here that on behalf of OP2, an application to join the proceeding was filed which was allowed vide order dated 25.03.2021.

5.                In this case, none has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 26.11.2020 nor any affidavit or documents have been formally tendered in evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any evidence, we are left with no option but to hold that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations made in the complaint.

6.              As a result of the above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

7.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:22.04.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Lakhvir Singh Vs State Bank of India                                       CC/19/351

Present:       None for the complainant.

                   None for OP1.

                   Sh. Sumit Jain, Advocate for OP2.

                  

                   None turned up for the complainant and OP1 today also.                                       Record perused. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:22.04.2022.

Gobind Ram.