Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A.P. Sahi, President and
Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Shiv Bachan Prasad – Petitioner
versus
Branch Manager, Punjab
National Bank and Anr. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.883 of 2025
(From the Order dated 17.04.2025 in FA No.1485/2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, U.P.) With
IA/6300/2025 (Stay)
Decided on 7.7.2025
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant cannot take advantage of his own lapses while imputing deficiency in service on part of Bank.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Banking – Vehicle loan – Allegation of Complainant is that post-dated cheques were not presented by Bank within time and were encashed at own choice of Bank imposing penal interest on Complainant for no fault of his – Complaint dismissed by Fora below – Loan agreement was not placed on record before District Commission, which could have directly reflected agreed rate of interest – Complainant cannot take advantage by not producing loan agreement which he could have done easily or by asking a copy from Bank itself – There is no allegation in complaint that he does not have copy of loan agreement – It was neither possible to construe incorrect rate of interest being imposed on Complainant – Allegation about cheques not being encashed at relevant time has not been proved before Fora below – Fora below have examined the matter factually and findings do not appear to be infirm on any material – Revision Petition dismissed. (Paras 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
ORDER
A.P. Sahi, President—This Revision Petition questions the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - II, Lucknow dated 08.08.2023 whereby the Complaint of the Petitioner has been rejected and the same has been confirmed on 17.04.2025 in Appeal - First Appeal No.1485 of 2023 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, U.P.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that undisputedly a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- was taken as a Vehicle loan from the Punjab and National Bank, Alambagh Branch, Lucknow. The said loan was repayable in 84 instalments spanning over four years with regard to which certain post-dated cheques were tendered by the Petitioner. According to his allegations, the loan was disbursed on the understanding that the rate of interest would be 7.5%. According to the Complainant, he had tendered 24 post dated cheques to the Bank that were payable on the first date of each English calendar month and the remaining 22 cheques were payable on the fourth day of each calendar month with an EMI of Rs.4,953/-.
3. The allegation of the Complainant is that the post dated cheques were not presented by the Bank within time and were encashed at the own choice of the Bank imposing penal interest or otherwise on the Complainant for no fault of his. This was a clear deficiency.
4. The loan had been taken on an application dated 19.12.2005 and in 2008, there were certain overdues indicated which were apparently wrong. The Complainant has alleged that he promptly deposited the amounts of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively as demanded, and when ultimately, in spite of having satisfied the loan the Complainant was informed that a sum of Rs.10,984/- was still due on 03.07.2010, he demanded documents and statements regarding the said realisation but the Bank having failed to furnish any details, the Complainant was not left with any option but to file CC No.929 of 2010 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - II, Lucknow claiming Rs.10 lakhs as compensation.
5. Notices were issued on the complaint and the Bank responded by filing a written statement but failed to appear thereafter and the complaint went ex-parte against the Bank vide Order dated 01.02.2023 as mentioned in the impugned Order of the District Commission. The Complaint was finally heard and dismissed on 08.08.2023.
6. The District Commission held that the Complainant had failed to produce the loan agreement in order to ascertain the correct status of the allegation about the rate of interest or even the Bank statement account which could reflect on the timings of the encashment of the post-dated cheques. The District Commission opined that had the cheques been encashed, the same would stand reflected through endorsements on the Bank statement account or the passbook of the Complainant. The complete Bank Loan Account Statement on the Complainant’s passbook was not produced nor any evidence to support the said claim was adduced.
7. Further the allegation about the deposit of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.20,000/- was also not established. The loan account statement from 13.05.2008 to 18.06.2008 only had been filed before the District Commission and therefore an inference was drawn by the District Commission that the partial filing of the loan statement account established that the statement of accounts had been given by the Bank but the full statement had not been filed by the Complainant. Thus the Commission drew an adverse inference on that count. The District Commission then relied on a couple of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to hold that the Complainant has to prove his case which he had failed to do and therefore, he was not entitled to any relief.
8. Coming to the issue of the quantum of compensation claimed to the tune of Rs.10 lakh, the District Commission came to the conclusion that the Complainant had filed on allegations to establish as to the amount that was over charged by the Bank that resulted in
