NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs Mithijam Vanaspati Ltd

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 24.2.2005 in Complaint No. 279/2004 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called ''District Forum'' for short) directing the appellant bank to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,00,170 with interest payable from 4.11.2004 as also compensation of Rs. 3000 and costs of Rs. 500.

INDISPUTABLY the complainant had deposited Rs. 50,000 in the appellant bank in its scheme captioned -Samridhi Khata Jama Yojana. Receipt No. 077789 dated 13.8.1998 was issued by appellant bank in favour of the complainant/respondent. It is further not in dispute that under the said scheme, maturity amount of Rs. 1,00,170 was payable to complainant/respondent on 13.8.2004. It is also not in dispute that the complainant had obtained a loan of Rs. 40,000 and had pledged the said receipt of Rs. 50,000 with the appellant bank by way of security. The case of the complainant was that he had repaid Rs. 44,100 towards the said loan of Rs. 40,000 and had thus discharged his liability. It was averred in above context that the said loan amount was paid by him in instalments as detailed below: Sl. No. Date Amount Paid 1. 26.5.2003 Rs. 5,000 2. 14.6.2003 Rs. 5,000 3. 8.9.2003 Rs. 30,000 4. 24.10.2003 Rs. 4,100 Total : Rs. 44,100

IT was averred that the appellant bank had returned the pledged receipt, as loan amount was repaid by the complainant. However, later on the Manager of appellant bank in January, 2004 intimated the complainant that there was outstanding balance of Rs. 29,955 towards the loan taken by him on 28.12.2002. Upon this the complainant intimated the repayment made by him, towards full discharge of his loan and also furnished an affidavit. The grievance of complainant was that despite full payment of loan, the appellant bank is refusing payment of the amount of Rs. 1,00,170 payable to the complainant under the scheme Samridhi Khata Jama Yojana.

THE appellant bank resisted the complaint. The stand of the bank was that the alleged payment of Rs. 30,000 on 8.9.2003 was in fact never made to the bank and that the loan amount was never fully repaid. It was averred that there was no ledger entry in the account of the bank regarding the aforesaid alleged payment of Rs. 30,000. Therefore, the appellant bank was not liable to pay the whole amount under the Samridhi Khata Jama Yojana. The District Forum in the impugned order recorded a finding that Rs. 30,000 were duly deposited by the complainant on 8.9.2003 and thus the loan amount was fully repaid. The complainant was held to be entitled to get the amount of Rs. 1,00,170. Accordingly the District Forum directed repayment thereof with interest, cost and compensation as mentioned above.

LEARNED Counsel for parties were heard. Record was perused.

AS noticed earlier the main dispute between the parties is regarding alleged payment of Rs. 30,000 by the complainant as has been asserted on his behalf. Though it is true that complainant has not produced receipt of the said amount but the material on record clearly justifies the above stand taken by him. The complainant has in the above context produced the passbook which shows that he had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 30,000 on 5.9.2003. The complainant asserted that he had deposited the said amount with appellant bank on 8.9.2003, as 6th and 7th September, 2003 were holidays. It may further be noticed in the above context that the pledged receipt of Samridhi Khata Jama Yojana pledged with the appellant bank had also been returned to the complainant. The return of the said receipt to the complainant, clearly corroborates his stand that he had repaid whole of the amount of loan to the appellant bank. Had the loan amount been not paid by the complainant to the appellant bank, there was no question of return of pledged receipt under Samridhi Khata Jama Yojana. No satisfactory explanation has been offered on behalf of the appellant bank as to why and how the said pledged receipt was returned to the complainant. In view of above it appears more probable that complainant had deposited Rs. 30,000 on 8.9.2003 after withdrawing the same from his other account as has been noticed above. The District Forum has taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and has assigned proper reasons for recording its finding that the loan amount of the appellant bank was fully repaid by the complainant. The finding as above does not call for any interference.

THIS appeal has no substance. It is accordingly dismissed. The impugned order is affirmed. The appellant bank shall bear its own cost of this appeal and shall pay that of the respondent, which is quantified as Rs. 1,000 (One thousand) only.