Judgment:
Oral Order:-
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member:-
This appeal is directed against the order/award dated 15/07/1999 passed in consumer complaint no.151/1998, Ayub Akbar Mulani V/s. State Transport Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Mumbai by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara (Forum below in short). Undisputed facts are that the respondent/org.complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) is a shareholder of appellant/org.opp.party/Bank (hereinafter referred as bank). Complainant has taken loan from the bank, which he could not repay since his services were terminated by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, where he was working. Since, he was a defaulter, the amount payable to him by way of interest on his deposit and dividend on his share were appropriated by the bank towards is loan. It is the grievance of the complainant that though said amount were alleged to have been appropriated towards his loan account, the same were actually not given credit in his loan account and as such, alleging deficiency in service on part of bank, he filed this consumer complaint.
The bank denied any such deficiency in service on their part. At the time of hearing, it appears that the bank has produced the documents showing such appropriation of amount. However, the Forum below allowed the complaint and directed as under:-:
âOpponent is directed to give relief of interest to complainants outstanding loan amount by taking into account the deductions from guarantors from the date of actual deductions and issue fresh extract of account by doing s to complainant within the period of 30 days from the date of this order.â
Feeling aggrieved thereby, the bank has preferred this appeal. Appellant remained absent in spite of notice of hearing sent to him under certificate of posting by way of abundant precaution. We heard Adv. Shri Nitin Patil h/f Adv. Shri Uday Warunjikar for the respondent. Perused the record.
In the instant case the Forum below in the internal page nos.7and 8 of the impugned order, at one place recorded the fact that the bank had given credit to the amount of interest and dividend and accordingly liability of the complainant towards outstanding dues of the loan was reduced. If it is so, there remains no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. In the later part of the impugned order, it is observed by the Forum below that there is deficiency in service on part of bank since, such appropriation was not shown, is a statement contrary to the earlier fact recorded. Apparently, there is no deficiency in service on part of bank since appropriation of amount of interest and dividend was made towards the outstanding amount of loan taken by the complainant. Furthermore, the direction given in para 1 of the operative order to do or not to do something is thus erroneous since, the account which was submitted by the bank already shows such appropriation. Thus, since the appropriation of the amount of interest and dividend in question is already made against the outstanding dues of the loan, there is no deficiency in service on part of the bank as alleged by the complainant.
There is one more angle to the issue. The bank already alleged that appropriation of the amounts of dividend and interest was made in the loan account of the complainant. The statement confirming the same is also filed and produced on record. Under the circumstance, even if the complainant has any grievance about the correctness of the loan account statement, then such grievance will not fall within ambit of consumer dispute. The element of hired service would be absent in such case.
For the reasons stated above, we pass the following order:
Order:
1. Appeal is allowed.
2. Impugned order/award dated 15/07/199 is set aside and in turn the consumer complaint no.151/1998 stands dismissed.
3. In the given circumstances, there is no order as to costs.
4. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.