BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR FIRST APPEAL NO: 326/2025 Jay Ram Meena S/o Shri Sanwata Ram Meena, Age about- 55 years, R/o Village-Morandi, Post- Karangarh, Teshil-

Bassi, District- Jaipur (Raj.)

… Appellant/ Complainant Vs.

1. The Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Address- Village & Post- Tunga Bassi, District- Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The Jaipur Central co-operative Bank Ltd. Through Manager, Address- F-1, Nursery Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) 302001 …Respondents/Opposite Parties Date of Order: 07-01-2026 Before:

Hon’ble Mr. Nirmal Singh Meratwal -Member Judicial Hon’ble Mr. Jai Gautam -Member Present:

Mr. P.P. Bunkar learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma learned counsel for the respondents BY THE STATE COMMISSION (PER HON’BLE MR.

JAI GAUTAM, MEMBER):

1. The appellant has filed this appeal under section 41 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Judgment dated 28.05.2025

passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission –I, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as DCDRC) in Complaint No. 337/2018 titled Jairam Meena v. The Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.

2. The appellant/ complainant version of the subject consumer dispute is that he took a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakh ) under Kisan Credit Card Krishak Samriddhi Yojna on 11.07.2013 by mortgaging ½ of his share of his land measuring 1 bigha 17 biswa with the respondent Bank. Its account no. was 22027610810006322. The complainant paid loan amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakh) and its interest Rs. 40,160/- (Rupees Forty thousand one hundred sixty) to the Respondent Bank on 11.07.2017. But the amount of Rs. 9,102/- remained in the complainants account. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) in the said loan account on 22.04.2016 and deposited an amount of Rs. 2,500/- (Two thousand five hundred) on 10.05.2018. Despite the complainant depositing the amount of Rs. 32,500/- (Rupees Thirty two thousand five hundred) the respondent Bank told the complainant that the total outstanding amount is Rs. 4,30,718/- (Rupees Four lakh thirty thousand seven hundred eighteen). The complainant was pressurized to pay the amount of Rs.5,14,782/- (Rupees Five lakh fourteen thousand seven hundred eighty two). That so much pressure was exerted by the respondent Bank that the complainant went into mental shock. The complainant sold his pet animal (2 buffalos and 2 cows) and jewellery and borrowing money from the relatives to pay this amount to the respondent Bank. On 28.05.2018 this amount was paid to the Bank. Respondent Bank received the complete amount of Rs. 5,14,782/- (Rupees Five lakh fourteen thousand seven hundred eighty two) from the complainant whereas the outstanding amount towards the Bank was Rs. 4,30,718/- (Rupees Four lakh thirty thousand seven hundred eighteen) on 28.05.2018. The respondent Bank collected amount of Rs.

5,14,782/- (Rupees Five lakh fourteen thousand seven hundred eighty two) from the complainant. This commission notes that there is an arithmetical in correction in petition of appeal. For taking value page 5, 1^st bullet point and point D of page 11 of petition of appeal are compared. Therefore an extra amount of Rs.61,568/- (in words Rupees Sixty one thousand five hundred sixty eight) was recovered by the respondent Bank. That the appellant-complainant requested the respondent bank for refund of the amount of Rs. 61,568/- (in words Rupees Sixty one thousand five hundred sixty eight) which was deliberately deposited/recovered violating the terms and conditions of loan agreement, but the Bank refused to return the amount citing Rs. 61,568/- (in words Rupees Sixty one thousand five hundred sixty eight) as interest amount and the respondent bank debited the said amount from the complainant loan account on 29.05.2018. Statement of account shows adjustment of Rs. 61,568.15 as the interest amount whereas the reality is tha