IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Reduce Interest & Penalty – Complainant’s prayer to reduce “interest and penalty” implied he was aware of the entries in the account statement. One cannot allege excessive charging without having perused the account details.
(2) Burden of Proof – Complainant must prove their own case and cannot rely solely on the weakness or absence (ex-parte status) of the opposite party.

ORDER

Sunita Yadav, President.—The appellant/Opposite Party No.1-State Bank of India has filed this appeal against the order dated 04.10.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jabalpur-2 (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.349/2011whereby complaint filed by the complainant/respondent No.1 has been allowed.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant/respondent No.1 had obtained loan facility from the Opposite Party No.1/appellant-bank, however, due to some financial constraints could not make payment of some installments and thereafter Rs.10,000/- were deposited. He had also deposited the amount of some installments as one time deposit. It is alleged by the complainant that despite demand being made, the Opposite Party No.1-bank did not supply statement of account due to which the complainant could not deposit installment. It is further submitted that he deposited Rs.1,70,000/- in his loan account despite that the Opposite Party No2/respondent no.2 sent notice demanding payment of outstanding amount without giving any details. The complainant/respondent No.1 therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking direction to the opposite parties to furnish statement of account as also not to charge interest and penalty. Relief of compensation and costs also sought for.

3. The Opposite Party No.1/appellant-SBI remained absent despite service of notice and was proceeded ex-parte.

4. The Opposite Party No.2/respondent no.2 in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the complainant failed to make payment of outstanding loan amount and a recall notice was sent to him. Since the complainant failed to make payment of outstanding dues as per terms and agreement, notice under Section 13(2) SURFAESI Act was sent to him demanding payment of outstanding dues. In case of non-payment of outstanding dues of loan obtained from Opposite Party No.1-bank, the Opposite Party No.2 is legally authorized to take necessary action as per law. There has been no deficiency in service on part of Opposite Party No.2. It was thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint directing the Opposite Party No.1 to supply copy of statement of account till 25.09.2010 of the questioned account to the complainant. The complainant was directed to pay interest outstanding till 25.09.2010 to the opposite parties and rest of the amount of interest after 25.09.2010 shall be borne by the Opposite Party No.1-SBI. The Opposite Party No.1-SBI was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1-State Bank of India argued that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is perverse and against the settled principles of law. It is further argued that learned District Commission failed to consider the reply and documents filed by the Opposite Party No.2/respondent no.2-ARCIL (Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited) which clearly prove that as per Assignment Agreement dated 20.03.2015 executed between the Opposite Party No.1/appellant-bank and the Opposite Party No.2/respondent no.2-ARCIL, the loan account relating to the complainant/respondent No.1 having number 10116339607 was assigned in favour of Opposite Party No.2/respondent no.2-ARCIL together with all its rights, title and interest in the financing documents. By virtue of said agreement, the Opposite Party No.2/respondent no.2-ARCIL steeped into shoes of the Opposite Party No.1/appellant-SBI and the Opposite Party No.2/respondent no.2 had to initiate action against the complainant/respondent No.1.

7. It is further submitted that since the loan account of the complainant/respondent No.1 was taken over by the Opposite Party No.2/respondent no.2-ARCIL and appellant was not maintaining loan account of complainant/respondent No.1 t