STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MADHYA PRADESH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/A/19/2096 STATE BANK OF INDIA PRESENT ADDRESS - 2ND FLOOR, REGIONAL OFFICE VBIJAY NAGAR, JABALPUR,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus PURSHOTTAM LAL SAHU PRESENT ADDRESS - LAXMI COLONY, HATITAL, GORAKHPUR JABALPUR,MADHYA PRADESH.

ARCIL PRESENT ADDRESS - MANSOAROVAR COMP. NEAR HABIBGANJ, STATION BHOPAL,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. DR. MONIKA MALIK , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT: STATE BANK OF INDIA FOR THE RESPONDENT: PURSHOTTAM LAL SAHU DATED: 06/01/2026

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 2096 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 04.10.2019 passed in C.C.No.349/2011 by District Commission Jabalpur-2)

STATE BANK OF INDIA,

SARB BRANCH, SECOND FLOOR,

REGIONAL OFFICE, VIJAY NAGAR, JABALPUR THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER … APPELLANT.

Versus

1. PUROSHATTAM LAL SAHU, S/O LATE HARI PRASAD SAHU, R/O LAXMI COLONY, HATITAAL, GORAKHPUR, JABALPUR (M.P.)

2. ARCIL (ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY INDIA LIMITED) MANSAROVAR COMPLEX, NEAR HABIBGANJ STATION, BHOPAL THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER …. RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Yash Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Akash Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 None for the respondent no.2.

O R D E R

(Passed On 06.01.2026)

Per Say Justice 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-

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 seking 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