AJAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against order dated 21.10.2008, passed in Complaint Case No. 154/2008 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called as "District Forum" for short), whereby the complaint was dismissed.

(2.) FACTS in brief, are that the complainant pursued the business of sale and purchase of vegetables for earning his livelihood and had availed loan facility from the OP Bank by mortgaging his shop and house. Processing charges with regard to the loan amounted to Rs. 20,000. The cash credit loan of Rs. 8,50,000 was sanctioned in favour of the complainant on 2.8.2006. After the aforesaid sanction the complainant had drawn cheque for Rs. 4,00,000 in favour of Prashant Maru on 19.10.2006 but it was dishonoured by the OP Bank for the reason that the limit sanctioned in favour of the complainant stood temporarily suspended. It was averred that no information regarding such suspension of limit was given to the complainant prior to the aforesaid dishonour. Subsequently on 28.10.2006, the complainant received a letter from the OP Bank wherein the OP had demanded affidavit from the complainant regarding not transferring the mortgaged property and had also demanded Stock Statement. The complainant had fulfilled the aforesaid requirements and had given a letter to the OP, to the effect that he deals in purchase and sale of vegetables. He purchases vegetables from the farmers in morning and sells the same to retail sellers by evening and at night, no stock is left with him.

(3.) AS per averments of the complaint, the OP insisted upon the complainant to close the account. It was averred in the complaint that the Bank had sanctioned loan in favour of the complainant but had suddenly cancelled the same, hence the complainant had to face great financial problems and mental harassment. The OP also did not return the original documents deposited by the complainant while creating equitable mortgage of his property hence there was deficiency in service on part of the OP. Claiming compensation complaint was filed.