- (1.) The State Bank of India, who was arraigned as respondent in a complaint petition filed before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, have challenged the order passed by the State Commission on the ground that the State Commission have wrongly foisted the liability of payment of compensation upon the petitioiner without considering the relevant documents available on the record. Admittedly the petitioner did not appear before the District Forum and it is only the opposite party no. 2, who was contesting the said complaint case.
(2.) The allegation of the complainant against the Finance Company as well as the Bank is that despite the ECS mandate the Finance Company did not take steps to get the money transferred directly from the account of the complainant to the Financer. The moment it was brought to the notice of the complainant, the payments were made in cash and after liquidating the entire loan amount, the Finance Company declined to issue No Objection Certificate. There was also allegation against the Bank for their lapses and laches in not transferring the installment amount from the account of the complainant to the Finance Company and, therefore, the complainant is entitled to receive compensation on account of harassment for deficiency in providing service.
(3.) The complaint case was allowed by the District Forum. It is observed that the petitioner had failed to transmit the EMI, as the opposite party/Bank did not give intimation in this regard. It is ultimately held that the Finance Company shall issue No Objection Certificate treating the entire loan amount right to have been paid and shall further pay costs as well as punitive damages suffered by the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively and further a sum of Rs.5,000/- is also directed to be paid by the Finance Company on account of compensation for harassment. The Finance Company carried the said order to the State Commission. Despite service the petitioner/Bank did not participate in the said appeal.;