STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRADUN Date of Admission: 05.07.2022 Date of Final Hearing: 07.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 09.01.2026 SC/5/A/84/2022 Indian Overseas Bank through its duly Authorised Signatory having its Registered Office at Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office at

763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2 and Branch Office at Rohalki Kishanpur, Block Bahadrabad Tehsil and District Haridwar, Uttarakhand (Through: Sh. Anurag Nautiyal, Advocate)

…… Appellant Versus

1. Sh. Palturam S/o Sh. Manglu R/o Village Ibrahimpur, Bahadrabad Tehsil and District Haridwar, Uttarakhand (Through: Sh. Sanjay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate via Video Conferencing)

2. Uttarakhand Bahuuddeshiya Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam Haridwar through its District Manager posted at Uttarakhand Bahuuddeshiya Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam Roshnabad, Haridwar, Uttarakhand (Through: None)

…… Respondents Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. B.S. Manral, Member

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.01.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 45 of 2017, styled as Sh. Palturam Vs. Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank and another, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed and the appellant & respondent No. 2 (opposite parties to the consumer complaint) were directed to pay an amount of Rs. 22,500/- to respondent No. 1 / complainant together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint, i.e., 02.02.2017 till payment, besides to pay litigation expenses in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The appellant & respondent No. 2 were also directed to drop / cancel the loan proceedings initiated by them.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that in the year 2008-09, the respondent No. 1 / complainant through respondent No. 2 applied with the appellant – bank for grant of loan of Rs. 50,000/- for his grocery shop and submitted the required documents. The bank officials asked the complainant to come after a week to inquire as to whether or not the loan has been sanctioned. However, when the complainant visited the bank after one week, no information was given to him and he was told that his loan is to approved by District Manager, Uttarakhand Bahuuddeshiya Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam, Roshnabad, Haridwar and only after approval from their end, loan amount can be disbursed in his favour. Inspite of several visits to the bank, no intimation was shared with the complainant regarding grant of loan. The respondent No. 2 issued a recovery notice dated 04.11.2016 against the complainant, wherein under the relevant scheme, grant of margin money to the tune of Rs. 12,500/- was shown and for want of deposit of loan instalment, recovery of Rs. 18,100/- was sought. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice through his counsel to respondent No. 2, in response whereof, the respondent No. 2 apprised that loan of Rs. 50,000/- was approved in the complainant’s favour for his grocery shop and under the scheme, bank loan was Rs. 27,500/-; Rs. 12,500/- was margin money and Rs. 10,000/- was subsidy amount. Out of the aforesaid amount, cheque No. 180001 dated 30.01.2009 for Rs. 22,500/- was sent to the bank. The bank did not act promptly and diligently on the loan application of the complainant, thus, deprived him from the loan amount, thereby committing deficiency in service. Therefore, the consumer complaint was presented by the complainant before the District Commission.

3. The appellant – bank filed written statement before the District Commission and pleaded that the complainant has himself stated that cheque for Rs. 22,500/- was sent to the bank on 30.01.2009, whereas the consumer complaint has been filed in the year 2017, which is barred by limitation, as such, not legally maintainable. The bank has exclusive right either to