State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bank Of Maharashtra vs Mr. Rupesh S/O. Shivprasad Jaiswal on 15 January, 2015
1 F.A. No. 671-10
MAHARASTHRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT
AURANGABAD
Date of filing: 15.11.2010
Date of Order:
15.01.2015
FIRST APPEAL NO. 671 OF 2010
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 222 OF 2010
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: AURANGABAD
Bank of Maharashtra
Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad
Through its Chief Manager &
Principal Officer of the bank ... Appellant
VERSUS
Mr. Rupesh s/o. Shivprasad Jaiswal
a) C/o. Flat No.17, Yamuna Nagr, C'
New Shahu Nagar, Kamatwade Shivar,
Trimbak Road, Nashik.
b) "Shree"Plot No.22, Balaji Nagar
New Rathi Towers, Dashmesh Nagar Road,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents
Coram : Shri. S.M. Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member Present: Adv. Shri. D. S. Khamat for appellant.
Adv. Shri. Suresh Nade for respondent.
- :: ORAL JUDGMENT ::-
Per Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member (Delivered on 13 th January, 2014)
1. Bank of Maharashtra through its Chief Manager, Aurangabad challenges in this appeal the judgment and order passed by District Forum, Aurangabad on 31.08.2010 while allowing consumer complaint No. 222/2010.
2. Facts in nutshell are as under:2
Complainant Rupesh Shivprasad Jaiswal resident of Aurangabad had availed the loan of Rs.45,000/- for purchasing the vehicle by the appellant. Said loan was to be repaid in 36 installments of Rs.1509/- and for that purpose complainant had deposited 36 post dated cheques with the appellant. Even then it is revealed by the complainant that some time cheques were not deposited in the bank on particular date, therefore complainant was required to pay the interest on the installment amount. It was also revealed by the complainant that, on 31.08.2008 appellant had deducted Rs.10,500/- from amount of the complainant without any intimation to him. It is stated by the complainant that he had deposited more than the amount which he was required to repay and therefore he approached to appellant bank and claimed the refund of extra amount and 'no dues certificate' and documents regarding the vehicle. But said were not supplied to him on the ground that complainant was defaulter and was in arrears. Therefore, complainant approached to Forum by claiming no dues certificate, letter to release hypothecation, Rs.1500/- extra installment paid by him and Rs.525/-, recovery charges recovered by him by the appellant. Complainant also prayed for injunction against the appellant not to recover any amount.
3. Appellant appeared before Forum and resisted the complaint on the ground that complainant availed the loan of Rs.4500/- with interest @ 8.75% p.a. Said was to be repaid in 60 installments of Rs.950/-. It is further submitted by appellant that complainant did not submit the post dated cheques. After 36 installments complainant approached to bank in October, 2008 and admitted arrears of Rs.9580/-. On 31.03.2010 complainant was in arrears of Rs.2118/-. But complainant falsely calculated the account and approached to Forum on false ground.
4. After hearing both the parties District Forum directed appellant to repay Rs.2025/- within 30 days with interest @ 9 % p.a. Forum also directed appellant to return the post dated cheques and issue "no dues 3 F.A. No. 671-10 certificate" and to return the document relating to the vehicle. Forum also directed appellant to pay Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and cost.
5. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order original respondent came in appeal. Adv. Shri. D. S. Khamat appeared for appellant. Adv. Shri. Suresh Nade appeared for respondent. It is submitted by Adv. Khamat that complainant had availed the loan at Rs.45,000/- and he was to repay said loan of Rs. 60 installments of Rs.950/-. But he did not deposit the entire amount of loan. In the month of 30.09.2008 complainant approached to appellant bank and he himself after going through the account details admitted that he is an arrears of Rs.9580/-. Even thereafter he did not deposit the total amount of loan; therefore 'no dues certificate' did not issued. Neither the documents relying to the vehicle were handed over.
Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of appellant. But District Forum by ignoring all the facts and evidence allowed the complaint and directed appellant to refund some amount, which is not legal and proper. Adv. Khamat drawn our attention to the account statement as well as the balance and security confirmation letter which was signed by complainant.
6. It is submitted by Adv. Nade appearing for appellant that complainant had availed the loan and was regularly depositing the installment amount. It is submitted by Adv. Nade that post dated cheques were deposited with the appellant bank. But appellant bank with malafied intention did not submit the cheques on particular dates, and therefore complainant was required to pay the interest. It is further submitted by Adv. Nade that without intimating the complainant amount of Rs.10500/- was deducted from the account of complainant by the appellant bank. This itself is a deficiency in service. District Forum rightly appreciated facts and evidence while allowing the complaint. Hence appeal be dismissed.
7. We thus herd both the counsel and perused the record. It is seen from record that complainant has availed the loan Rs.45,000/- which was 4 to repaid in 60 installments of Rs.950/-. But while mentioning in the complaint complainant submitted that loan was to be repaid in 36 installments instead of 60 installments. But while perusing the statement of account it is seen that the loan was to be repaid in 60 installments. It has also come on record that balance and security confirmation letter dated 25.10.2008 was signed by complainant, according to which he was in arrears of Rs.9580/-. But no record about the total amount of repayment of loan was produced by the complainant. The statement of account produced by bank and produced by complainant are totally different. But while considering the case of complainant District Forum ignored the statement of account produced by bank and allowed the complaint. In our view, said order is suffering from illegality and infirmity. Hence requires to be quashed and set aside. Hence-
-:: ORDER ::-
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The judgment and order passed by District Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. Complaint stands dismissed.
4. No order as to cost.
(Mrs. Uma S. Bora) (S.M. Shembole)
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Kalyankar