State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager, State Bank Of India vs Dr Jagdish Balasaheb Shinde on 3 September, 2024
1 FA/765/2019
Date of filing :15.04.2019
Date of order :03.09.2024
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 765 OF 2019
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 151 OF 2018
DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION : PARBHANI.
Branch Manager, Appellant
State Bank of India, (Adv.A.V.Rakh)
ADB Pathri Branch, Selu Corner,
Main road, Pathri, Dist.Parbhani.
VERSUS
Dr.Jagdish Balasaheb Shinde, Respondent
R/o Datta Nagar, Pathri, ( Adv.A.R.Barate)
Dist.Parbhani.
CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon'ble Presiding Member.
Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon'ble Member.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 03/09/2024) Per Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon'ble Presiding Member.
1. This is an appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and order passed by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Parbhani (the 'District Commission' for short) in C.C.No.151/2018 whereby the District Commission directed the appellant to refund the 2 FA/765/2019 amount of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @ 6 % p.a. within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order along with Rs.2,000/- each for the mental and physical harassment and costs of the proceedings.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that, the respondent in 2010 had taken 'two' loans one is term loan and the another is 'home loan' from the appellant. For obtaining those loans he had mortgaged plot No.14 house No.313/1, plot No.19 house No.313/1, plot No.20 house No.318/1, plot No.13 house No.621/2 situated in the Municipal area of Pathri. Because of his financial adversities, the respondent unable to repay the loans regularly and therefore, the appellant initiated proceedings against him under the provisions of SARFAESI Act for the total outstanding of Rs.72,77,212/-. Thereafter, the respondent repaid that amount by selling his above mentioned properties, on 15.09.2018. However, he wanted the 'no dues certificate' because the house he sold to one Mr.Dr.Sasode told him that, there are encumbrances of the appellant on the property extract of the said house. When he demanded the same from the appellants they asked him to deposit sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in the name of Universal Recovery Services. He paid that amount under protest and filed consumer complaint, in which the impugned judgment and order came to be passed. Being aggrieved thereby the appellants before us in this appeal.
3. We heard Adv. Rakh for the appellant and Adv. Barate for the respondent.
3 FA/765/2019
4. Adv. Rakh for the appellant argued that, since the loan accounts of the respondent become non-performing assets the proceedings under SARFAESI Act was initiated. At the same time so as to recover the outstanding amount the appellant appointed one agency namely 'Universal Recovery Service' for recovery of amount as stipulated in the loan agreement. As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement such agency could be appointed by the 'creditor bank' and the expenses incurred on the recovery of the outstanding amount would be borne by the 'debtor'. Though the respondent repaid the loan on 15.09.2018 but he has not paid the charges incurred by the Universal Recovery Services and therefore, sum of Rs.2,50,000/- has duly been recovered from the respondent. There is no deficiency on the part of the appellant. But the ld. District Commission ignored this fact and passed the impugned judgment against the appellant. The impugned judgment is erroneous and will have to be quashed and set aside.
5. While countering the above submission Adv. Barate for the respondent submitted that, no efforts were required to be made by Universal Recovery Service for the recovery outstanding sum from the respondent. Such recovery service has been unilaterally appointed. The appellant not shown any of the documentary evidence to establish the fact that so much of the amount has been expended by the said agency for recovering the loan amount. In such circumstances the ld. District Commission rightly held the appellant liable for the deficiency in service. There is no error in the impugned judgment which requires interference by this Commission.
4 FA/765/2019
6. We agree with the above submission of Adv. Barate for the respondent. The main reason behind this is that, though the loan agreement stipulates that such recovery agency could be appointed by the bank for the recovery of the outstanding loan amount, but at the same time it is to be remembered that, such agency must recover only such sums for its services from the debtor, which are just and reasonable. Merely because there is such term in the loan agreement it does not necessarily mean that, any kind of sum arbitrarily could be recovered from the debtor. In the present matter the appellants exercised the right given to it by loan agreement in an arbitrary manner and to the detriment to the consumer interest, because the respondent repaid the entire outstanding amount by selling out his plots. There is no evidence on record to show that, Universal Recovery Services incurred any expenses for the recovery of the loan amount from the respondent. In our view the appellant has rightly been held liable for the deficient service by the District Commission. There is no error or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment. It is liable to be confirmed. In the facts and circumstance of this appeal it will be just to direct the appellant to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- as the cost of this proceedings as it unnecessarily dragged the respondent to contest this appeal. Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The impugned judgment and order is hereby confirmed.
3. The appellant is directed to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent as the cost of this proceedings.
5 FA/765/2019
4. The copy of this judgment be furnished to both sides free of cost.
N.C.Kumbre M.S.Sonawane
Member Presiding Member
UNK