IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) “Unfair Trade Practice” – An “unfair trade practice” refers to a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use, or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice.
(2) Deficiency in Service Established – ”Deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. These actions – altering a fixed rate without consent and maintaining erroneous, unauthorized account deductions – amount to a clear “deficiency in service” and an “unfair trade practice” under the Consumer Protection Act, resulting in the dismissal of the bank’s appeal.

ORDER

Sunita C. Bagewadi. Member—This appeal is filed by the Appellants/Opposite party being aggrieved by the order dated 2.1.2025 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Davanagere in CC.No.111/20l7 and prays to set-aside the order and to allow the appeal in the interest of justice and equity

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-

The complainant has availed housing loan of Rs.4.00 lakhs and Rs.2.00 lakhs with account No.6401467771 on 15.3.2007 and 9.1.2008 respectively from the Opposite Party bank, with the agreed fixed rate of interest @ 11.5%. The said loan was availed jointly by the complainant and his mother Gangamma. The mother of the complainant has died on 24.7.2013. The complainant had deposited Rs.72,000/- each in both loan accounts through challans. But the Opposite Party bank has not credited to same to the first loan account. Again the complainant deposited Rs.50,000/- towards second loan account which was also not credited by the bank in the loan account. Both these accounts were closed the complainant in March 2017 and August 2012 respectively. However, the Opposite Party has collected additional charges of Rs.6,475/- and further collected Rs.10,014/- towards insurance of his first loan account, but the same has not been remitted to insurance company. After discharging the said loans, the complainant carne to know some discrepancies in the said transactions for which the complainant has raised the consumer complaint before the District Commission, Davanagere.

3. After service of notice of the District Commission, the Opposite Party appeared through counsel and filed version and contended that Rs.10,014/- was debited in 1st loan account on 15.3.2007 and sent the same to SBI Life Insurance Company. Further contended the bank has collected Rs.6,475/- on 27.3.2017 towards the expenses incurred in invoking SARFAESI Act to the said NPA account and it is not the excess collected amount Rs.72,000/- was deposited by the complainant during the late evening hours by mis-guiding the staff, mentioning it as towards 2nd loan account, ensuring that the challans were prepared by the staff. Further contended that the mistaken entry was noticed on 5-2-2010 and it was rectified and immediately the said amount remitted to the 1st loan account. As the software did not allow value of more than Rs.10,000/- such entries were made 7 times. The said rectification entries were informed to the complainant and taken his consent and thereafter only the complainant came and took another challan 2-3 days later towards 2nd house loan. Further contended that, when the first loan account was cleared on 27.3.2017 the bank had already invoked the steps under SARFAESI Act, after declaring it as NPA and the expenses towards the said steps were added to his account at the time of clearance of his loan amount and it is not the excess amount as alleged by the complainant. Hence there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.

4. After trial, the District Commission dismissed the complaint by its order dated 12.1 .2018. Against the said order, the complainant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission in appeal No.287/2018. Allowing the said appeal, the Hon’ble State Commission vide its order dated 3.3.2022 remanded back the matter to the District Commission “to decide the case afresh appreciating the materials placed on record in right perception affording opportunities to both parties to lead their further evidence if any and dispose of the case in accordance with law”.

5. After receiving the said order from the State Commission, the notices were issued by the District Commission to both the parties. The complainant appeared through his counsel. However the Opposite Party remained absent, though the notice is served on 2 .6.2022. In view of the said direction of State Commission both parties were given opportunities to lead their further evidenc