Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 2518
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A.P. Sahi, PRESIDENT, Bharatkumar Pandya, MEMBER
Shiv Bachan Prasad – Appellant
Versus
The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank – Respondent
Revision Petition NC/RP/883/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Srivastava
For the Respondents: Mr. Ram Prakash Verma
The court emphasized the necessity of substantiating claims with proper documentation in consumer disputes; the lack of evidence regarding the loan agreement led to the dismissal of the appeal.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Sections relevant to consumer dispute resolution - Revision petition challenging the order rejecting a complaint for a vehicle loan, raising issues regarding the interest rate discrepancies and the failure to produce necessary documentation - Complaint dismissed by the District Commission for lack of evidence. (Paras 6-12)
(B) Burden of proof - The complainant failed to produce crucial documents, including the loan agreement and full bank statements, resulting in unsubstantiated claims regarding the terms of the loan. (Paras 15-16)
Facts of the case:
The complainant availed a vehicle loan from the bank but alleged discrepancies regarding the interest rate after repayment. He claimed the bank encashed cheques without adherence to the agreed terms, leading to a complaint seeking compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs against the bank. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the decisions of the lower commissions, asserting that the complainant did not establish any deficiency in service or substantiate the claims made regarding the loan. (Paras 17-19)
Issues: The court examined whether the complainant had substantiated his allegations regarding the bank's conduct and the terms of the loan agreement. (Paras 8, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of the loan agreement and complete bank statements led the court to conclude that the allegations regarding improper interest charges and collection practices remained unproven, thereby declining to intervene. (Paras 15-16)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. questioning the district commission's ruling. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. allegations made regarding loan repayment. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. importance of documentation in establishing claims. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. discussion about the adequacy of evidence presented. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. findings on the failure to prove the case. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 6. ultimate decision of dismissal of the revision petition. (Para 14 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT
1. 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
