Telangana Redressal forum upheld ruling on State Bank of India
![The State Redressal Forum after referring to all the evidence stated that there was no fault in the finding of the district forum as there was no evidence that the respondent had to pay the bank more. The State Redressal Forum after referring to all the evidence stated that there was no fault in the finding of the district forum as there was no evidence that the respondent had to pay the bank more.](https://images.deccanchronicle.com/dc-Cover-q66euvn2m8luk8oju08p1ngvi4-20181118014746.Medi.jpeg)
Hyderabad: The Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has upheld an order of the Hyderabad District Consumer Forum which was granted in favour of a retired Railway employee over a loan dispute with the State Bank of India.
The district forum on December 16, 2013, while allowing the complaint of one Govind Raj Vijay Kumar, directed the bank to pay a compensation of Rs 20,000 within a month, along with provision of the true and correct statement of account and not to levy any penal interest.
The case of the complainant was that he borrowed Rs 1.5 lakh in 2005 and that he had repaid an amount of Rs 2,24,427 in lumpsum, after he took voluntary retirement in 2010. Despite that, the bank sent a notice on April 19, 2011, that he had to pay Rs 1,00,504. The district forum while refusing the claim of the bank due to lack of evidence, directed it to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant. The bank then approached and appealed before the state forum.
resisting the claim of the complainant, and said that he had paid only Rs 1,15,800.
It was submitted that he failed to maintain proper funds in his salary account to adjust the loan instalment as per the accounting system, which is as per the bank’s procedure.
The State Redressal Forum after referring to all the evidence stated that there was no fault in the finding of the district forum as there was no evidence that the respondent had to pay the bank more.
The state forum pointed out that there was no justifiable reason for the bank to pay compensation to the complainant.