Appeal frled on: 09.09.2023 Appeal disposed on: 16.O!.2026 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMTSSTON, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCHI DATED THIS THE 16th DAy OF JANUARY,20/26 CORAM: HON'BLE SRI.RAVI SHANI(AR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, LADY EMBER APPEAL NO.L736(2O23 State Bank of India, ADB Branch, Near Ram & Co. Circle, PJ Extension, Davanagere .,. Appellant/s Represented by its Chief Manager Mr.N.H.Prakash, (By Srt.BrtJesh Chander Guru, Ad.vocate)

-vls-

Sri.D. S. Paramesh @ S.Paramesh, S/o late Sri.D.S. Shivappa, Residing at Banashankari Nilaya, ... Respondent/ s Anjaneya Temple Road, Avaragere Village, Davanagere taluk /By ^Sn$nrathl. tt, Aduocate)

ORDER BY SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI. MEMBER This appeal is filed by the Appellants/Opposite party being aggrieved b5z the order dated 2.1.2025 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Davanagere in u

I

CC.No.llll2OlT and prays to set-aside the order arrd 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

15.3.2007 and 9.1.2008 respectively from the Opposite Party bank, with the agreed fixed rate of interest @ ll.5%. The said loan was availed ^jointly by the complainant and his mother Gangamma. The mother of the complainant has died, iakhs and Rs.2.00 lakhs with account No.64O1467771 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

I 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/- u,as debited in 1"r 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 2"a 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 rectilied and immediately the said amount remitted to the lst loan account. As the software did not allow value of more than Rs.10,000/- such entries were made 7 times. The said rectilication 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 27.3.2O1T the bank had already invoked the steps under Sarfaesi Act, after declaring

it as NPA and the expenses tor.t ards the said steps ^were added to his account at the time of clea-rance of his loan amount and it is not the excess amount as alleged by the complainant. Hence there is no any de{iciency 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, State Commission in appeal No.287 l2Ol8. Allowing the said order, the compiainant preferred an appeal before the Honble appeal, the Honble