State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Aadarniya P. D. Patilsaheb Sahakari ... vs Shri Sambhaji Tukaram Yadav, on 23 June, 2015
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/14/289
(Arisen out of Order Dated 04/04/2014 in
Complaint Case No. CC/13/82 of District Forum, Satara)
AADARNIYA P. D. PATILSAHEB SAHAKARI BANK
LTD., KARAD,
THROUGH C.E.O.
MR. NAJMUDDIN GULAB MOMIN,
HAVING OFFICE AT:-
SAHAKAR BHAVAN,
STATION ROAD, KARAD,
SATARA 415 110.
BRANCH OFFICER,
SHRI GOPAL HANMANT SALVI,
AADARNIYA P. D. PATILSAHEB SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,
KARAD,
R/AT:- UMBREJ, TALUKA KARAD,
SATARA 415 110.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
SHRI SAMBHAJI TUKARAM
YADAV,
R/AT:- SHIRGAON,
TALUKA KARAD,
SATARA 415 110.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Honble Mr. Justice R. C. Chavan,
President
Honble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member
For the Appellant:
ADV. FILJI FREDRICK
For the Respondent:
NONE
ORDER
Per Honble Mr. Justice R. C. Chavan, President This appeal is directed against an order dated 04/04/2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara partly allowing Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2013 and directing the Appellants/original Opponents (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Bank for the sake of convenience) to pay to the Respondent/original Complainant (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant for the sake of brevity) a sum of Rs.34,122/- together with interest thereon @ 6% p.a. besides an amount of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation towards physical and mental agony.
[2] Facts, which are material for deciding this appeal, are as under:-
Complainant had a savings bank account bearing No.447 with the Bank.
There was a sum of Rs.34,122/- in credit in his savings bank account. Complainant had issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.33,500/- to Karad Urban Cooperative Bank on 11/03/2013 towards repayment of their loan.
However, said cheque was referred back to the drawer. Complainant then, learnt that amount standing in his savings bank account had not been released because the Bank had kept a charge on the said amount as the Complainant was a guarantor to the loan sanctioned to one Mr. Niwas Yadav, which had not been repaid. Aggrieved by the Banks action, the Complainant filed the said complaint.
[3] Bank appeared before the District Forum and contested the complaint reiterating that it had kept a charge on the amount in the Complainants account as the Complainant was a guarantor to loan advanced to Mr. Niwas Yadav.
[4] After considering rival contentions, the District Forum came to pass the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the Bank is before us.
[5] We have heard learned Adv. Filji Frederick on behalf of the Appellant/Bank.
With his help we have also carefully perused the entire material placed on record. Though learned Adv.
Ramsingh Rajput had appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant on the previous date, today Respondent/Complainant as well as his learned counsel failed to appear before this Commission without any sufficient reason and as such, we did not have the benefit of hearing anyone on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant.
[6] District Forum seems to have held that the order in Case No.705 of 2009 before the Cooperative Court does mention anything about keeping a charge on the Complainants savings bank account in respect of loan advanced to Mr. Niwas Yadav. It was also mentioned that the defence of keeping a charge was not taken in a notice sent through an advocate. Notice merely mentioned that the account was, frozen. We find causation by the District Forum to be illogical. Whether the cooperative court had directed creating a charge on the Complainants savings bank account is thoroughly irrelevant. There is a specific authority given by the Complainant to the Bank stating that he had authorized the Bank to the recover the amount of loan taken by Mr. Niwas Yadav from his savings bank account. In face of this authority, a further order from the cooperative court was not necessary. In any case, even the advocates notice clearly mentioned that the Complainants account was, frozen. Merely because the advocate did not use the word, charge, the District Forum should not have concluded that defence taken was not substantiated. When the Complainants savings bank account was frozen obviously, the Bank could not have honoured the cheque issued by the Complainant and, therefore, it was rightly referred to drawer.
Complainant should have shown that Mr. Niwas Yadav had repaid the loan and that nothing was due from him.
Very fact that the Bank had to file a claim before the cooperative court for recovery of the amount due would show that the amount was not repaid. Thus, the act of the Complainant in seeking to have his amount released after having offered himself to be a guarantor for Mr. Niwas Yadav and after authorizing the Bank to recover the amount from his savings bank account was unscrupulous. In view of this we pass the following order:-
ORDER The appeal is allowed.
Impugned order dated 04th April, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara partly allowing Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2013 is hereby set aside. Consequently, consumer complaint stands dismissed.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 23rd June, 2015 [JUSTICE R. C. CHAVAN] PRESIDENT [DHANRAJ KHAMATKAR] MEMBER KVS