Consumer Appeal

FIRST APPEAL No.
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE PRESIDENT, VICE

PRESIDENT AND MEMBER, STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT
BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
SYNONPSIS
State Bank of India,

Agro Development Branch, Satara
Through its Br. Manager Mr. Zunzar Jaysing Bhagat
Age. 55 Occu. Service, R/o. C/o,
State Bank of India, Br. Agro Development Branch,
Satara, Deshmukh Colony, Sadar Bazar, Satara
( State Bank of India is the Body Corporate APPELLANT

Constitute under “State Bank of
India Act 1955”, having it’s Corporate
Office at Madam Cama Road,Nariman Point,
Mumbai and one of its branch office viz.
Agro Development Branch, Satara, Deshmukh
Colony, Sadar Bazar, Satara)
Versus
Mr. Shekhar Sahebrao Jadhav,

Age – Major, Occu. Agriculturist RESPONDENT
R/o. At Post Jalgaon, Tal. Koregaon,

Dist. Satara.
The SYNOPSIS in respect of the present Appeal:-
1) The Respondent had filed the original complaint i.e. CC/125/2014

before the District Forum, Satara contending that, he is the
customer of Appellant Bank and he had advanced the various agro
loans from the Appellant Bank prior from year 2010. On
13/11/2013, the Appellant bank sent the notice to the respondent
contending that, the National Level Lok Adalat was being held on
23/11/2013 and the Appellant bank has introduced the unusual
“One Time Settlement (OTS)” scheme for the outstanding loans of
the bank by giving the special concession on its outstanding loans
in the said Lok-Adalat. In order to avail the benefit of this scheme,
the concerned beneficiary of this scheme was required to deposit
the 10% amount of the entire outstanding loan before 22/12/2013.
Then on 22/12/2013 he had to pay the outstanding loan amount
after deducing outstanding interest the concessions from it granted
under the said scheme and then the said account shall be deemed as
settled account. And, It was further condition of this scheme was
that, if the beneficiary of this scheme, will pay the outstanding
dues after the 22/12/2013 but before 22/02/2014 then he had to pay
the interest over the outstanding loan amount @10% P.A. between
22/12/2013 till the date of repayment. And lastly, if the the
beneficiary of this scheme fails to repay the entire or any part of
outstanding loan amount before 22/02/2014, then he shall lose the
benefit of this scheme and his loan accounts shall be treated as
Non-Performinsg Assets as before and in such a case, the 10%
amount paid by him in the beginning shall not be refundable.
2) It is further contended by the respondent in his original complaint

that, the respondent invested the initial 10% in the said scheme and
thereafter he was not able to pay the entire outstanding sum on or
before 22/12/2013. However, he repaid the entire requisite amount
to avail the benefit of the said scheme on 31/02/2014, Hence, He
was elligibel to repay the interest over the principle loan amount
@10 % P.A. between the period from 22/12/2013 to 31/12/2014.
The respondent has admitted in his original complaint that, he has
failed to deposit the interest over the said outstanding sum @ 10 %
P.A. between the period from 22/12/2013 to 31/12/2014. Due to
which on 22/02/2014, the benefits of the respondent of the above
OTS Scheme were revoked by the Appellant Bank and accordingly
it did not issue him the No-Dues Certificates of his Loan.
3) There is another allegation of the Responent in his original

complaint that, he had already paid the amount pf Rs. 35,000/- on
24/03/2011 and the Appellant bank had not credited the said sum
in the account statements of the Appellant and due to which there
was shortfall of amount required for the entire repayment on
31/01/2014 and the the interest which was required to be paid to
the bank @10 % P.A. between the period from 22/12/2013 to
31/12/2014 was lesser than the said amount. As as the Appellant
bank allegedly did not appropriate the said sum of RS. 35,000/- in
the loan accounts of the bank, he was catagorised as the defaulter
and his loan accounts were freezed by the bank and his benefits
under the OTS scheme were also lost. Further, as the present
Respondent was still held eligible to repay the oustanding sum of
Rs. 11,44,773/- due to which the present Respondent was allegedly
faced mental shock and agony. Being aggrived by the alleged
deficiency in service by the Appellant the Respondent filed the
complaint before District Forum bearing Consumer Complaint No.
125/2014. The present Appellant appeared through its advocate in
the said complaint and filed its say. The present Appellant
catagorcally denied all the allegations made by the Respondent in
his original complaint and it also adduced the required evidence for
the same. It was strongly argued by the present Appellant that, the
original complaint was filed by the Respondent only in order to
evade from his legal liability . The matter was heard and decided
by the president as well as members of District Forum Satatra and
on 29/09/2017 surprisingly to the Appellant the said original
complaint was partly allowed by giving obnoxious relifs to the
Respondent. Being Highly Aggreaved as well as dissaticefied by
the impuigned judgment and order of District Forum, Satara, the
present Appellant has preferred the present Appeal before the
present hon’ble commission.
Hecne This Synopsis.
Kolhapur
Date:-
FIRST APPEAL No.

BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
State Bank of India, Branch Satara,

Through its Br. Manager Mr. Zunzar J. Bhagat APPELLANT
Versus
Mr. Shekhar Sahebrao Jadhav, RESPONDENT
INDEX
Sr. Particulars Remarks Page Nos.

No.
1 Synopsis
2 Appeal Memo
3 Affidavit in Support of
Appeal
3 Vakalatnama
4 Address Memo
5 Certified Copy of
Judgment passed by
Ho’ble District Forum
Satara in CC No.
125/2014 dated
29/09/2017
6 Gazzette Notification of
Governemt of India dated
27/03/1987
7 List of Documents
Hence The Index
Kolhapur
Date /
BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
FIRST APPEAL No. OF 2017
DISTRICT : SATARA
State Bank of India, Branch Agro )

Development Branch , Satatra Through )
its Branch Manager Mr. Zunzar Jaysing Bhagat )
Age. 55 Occu. Service, R/o. C/o, )
State Bank of India, Br. Agro Development )
Branch, Satara, Deshmukh Colony, )
Sadar Bazar, Satara )
(State Bank of India is the Body Corporate )
Constituted under “State Bank of ) APPELLANT
India Act 1955”, having it’s Corporate ) /
Original Office at Madam Cama Road,Nariman Point, )
Opponent Mumbai and one of its branch office viz. )
) Colony, Sadar Bazar, Satara
)
Versus
Mr. Shekhar Sahebrao Jadhav, )

Age – Major, Occu. Agriculturist ) RESPONDENT
R/o. At Post Jalgaon, Tal. Koregaon, ) / Original
Dist. Satara. ) Complainant
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND
ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT
FORUM SATARA IN CONSUMENR
COMPLAINT NO. 125/2014 DATED
29/09/2017
THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPELLANT MOST RESPECTFULLY

SHEWETH:-
1) The Applicant No. 1 is the body corporate constituted under the

“State Bank of India Act 1955” having it’s corporate office at
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai. The Bank has established it’s Agro
Development Branch at Satara, addressed at, Deshmukh Colony,
Sadar Bazar, Satara and At present Mr.
“Branch Manager” is the authorized officer of the bank and he
holds the necessary powers and authorities to file the present
appeal and to verify and sign the various documents on behalf of
Appellant bank by virtue of Government of India’s Official
Gazette Notification dated 27/03/1987
2) The Respondent had filed the original complaint i.e. CC/125/2014

before the District Forum, Satara contending that, he is the
customer of Appellant Bank and he had advanced the various agro
loans from the Appellant Bank. The Respondent has advanced the
the following sums from the appellant bank as agricultural loans
from the time to time.
Sr. Loan Account Type of Loan Loan Amount

No. No. in Rs.
1 10108468688 ACC Long Term 50,000/-
Crop
2 30008666388 ATL Other Agri 1,00,000/-
Finance
3 30054180134 ATL Cultivation 44,000/-
Fruit
4 30013431554 ATL Agri Services 70,000/-
Centre
5 30038473570 ATL Other 75,000/-
Government Crop
6 30050855817 ATL COMP Minor 1,00,000/-
Irregation
7 30050032496 ATL Plug Animalus 80,000/-
3) It is further alleged by the respondent in his original ccopmaint

that, On 13/11/2013, the Appellant bank sent the notice to the
respondent contending that, the National Level Lok Adalat was
being held on 23/11/2013 and the Appellant bank has introduced
the unusual “One Time Settlement (OTS)” scheme for the
outstanding loans of the bank by giving the special concessions on
its outstanding loans in the said Lok-Adalat. It is further alleged by
the respondent in his original complaint that, The Appellent
through its letter had communicated the following perticulars
regarding settlement of his outstanding loan accounts if he is
interested to settle his loans in the said scheme. Those particulars
are.
I) Loan A/c No. 10108468688

O/s. Amount Rs. 26,995.51
Special Concession Rs. 6,748.88
(20/25/50%)
Amount to be repaid Rs. 20,246.63
Under the said scheme, the special concession of Rs. 6, 748.88

and the Interest of Rs. 30,425.32. Shall be waived, Hence
Totally Rs. 37,174.2 Shall be waived by the bank.
II) Loan A/c No. 30008666388

O/s. Amount Rs. 1,07,649.0/-
(20/25/50%)
Under the said scheme, the special concession of Rs. 26,912.25

and the Interest of Rs. 1,38,643.25 Shall be waived, Hence
Totally Rs. 1,65,555.5 Shall be waived by the bank.
III) Loan A/c No. 30054180134

(20/25/50%)

IV) Loan A/c No. 3001341554
(20/25/50%)

and the Interest of Rs. 73,135.50. Shall be waived Hence
V) Loan A/c No. 30038472570

(20/25/50%)

VI) Loan A/c No. 30050855817

(20/25/50%)
Under the said scheme, the special concession of Rs.

15,961.50 and the Interest of Rs. 47,668.50. Shall be waived
Hence Totally Rs. 63,629.97 Shall be waived by the bank
VII) Loan A/c No. 30050032496

(20/25/50%)
Under the said scheme, the special concession of Rs.
12,333.00 and the Interest of Rs. 43,653.00. Shall be waived,
Hence Totally Rs. 55987.03 Shall be waived by the bank.
Moreover, the mandates of the said scheme were that, In

order to avail the benefit of this scheme, the concerned beneficiary
of this scheme was required to deposit the 10% amount of the
entire outstanding loan before 22/12/2013. Then on 22/12/2013 he
had to pay the outstanding loan amount after deducing outstanding
interest the concessions from it granted under the said scheme and
then the said account shall be deemed as settled account. And, It
was the further condition of this scheme was that, if the beneficiary
of this scheme, will pay the outstanding dues after the 22/12/2013
but before 22/02/2014 then he had to pay the interest over the
outstanding loan amount @10% P.A. between 22/12/2013 till the
date of repayment. And lastly, if the the beneficiary of this scheme
fails to repay the entire or any part of outstanding loan amount
before 22/02/2014, then he shall lose the benefit of this scheme and
his loan accounts shall be treated as Non-Performinsg Assets as
before and in such a case, the 10% amount paid by him in the
beginning shall not be refundable.
4) It is further contended by the respondent in his original complaint that,

the respondent invested the initial 10% amount in the said scheme and
thereafter he was not able to pay the entire outstanding sum on or before
22/12/2013. However, he repaid the entire requisite amount to avail the
benefit of the said scheme on 31/02/2014, Hence, He was elligible to repay
the interest over the principle loan amount @10 % P.A. between the period
from 22/12/2013 to 31/12/2014. The respondent has admitted in his original
complaint that, he has failed to deposit the interest over the said outstanding
sum @ 10 % P.A. between the period from 22/12/2013 to 31/12/2014. Due
to which on 22/02/2014, the benefits of the respondent of the above OTS
Scheme were revoked by the Appellant Bank and accordingly it did not
issue him the No-Dues Certificates of his Loan.
5) There is another allegation of the Responent in his original

complaint that, he had already paid the amount pf Rs. 35,000/- on
24/03/2011 to the appellant bank and the Appellant bank had not
credited the said sum in the accounts of the Appellant and due to
which there was shortfall of amount required for the entire
repayment on 31/01/2014 and allegedly, the interest which was
required to be paid to the bank @10 % P.A. between the period
from 22/12/2013 to 31/12/2014 was lesser than the said amount. It
is further alleged by the Respondent in his original complaint that,
when he communicated the said fact to the Appellant bank, the
Appellant bank told him that, it will deduct the sum of outstanding
interest from the said Rs. 35,000 and shall return him the balance
amount and shall issue him the loan clearance certificate.
6) It is further alleged by the Respondent is his original complaint

that, one of his relatives issued him one cheque in the name of his
firm viz. M/s. Indu Constructions and accordingly he deposited the
said cheque in the Appellant Bank. But when the said cheque was
cleared the Respondent was unable to withdraw the amount of said
cheque as he found his account was freezed by the Appellent bank
due to non-payment of aforesaid loans. And he was further
informed by the appellant bank that there is outstanding loan
amount of Rs. 11,44,773/- due from him and to de-freeze his
accounts, he has to repay atleast Rs. 5,00,000/- from it. Due to said
fact, the Respondent allegedly sustained huge shock and mental
agony.
7) It is further alleged by the Respondent is his original complaint

that, he sent the legal notice to the Appellent bank through his
advocate regarding alleged deficiency in service by the appellant
bank on 11/07/2014 and instructed it to close all his loan accounts
and issue him the No Dues Certificate but allegedly the appellant
bank neither answered the said notice nor it closed down the loan
accounts of Respondent and issued him the No Dues Certificate
8) It was the implied case of the present Respondent in original

complaint that, As as the Appellant bank allegedly did not
appropriate the said sum of Rs. 35,000/- which was paid by him on
24/03/2011 in his loan accounts, he was catagorised as the
defaulter and his loan accounts were freezed by the bank and his
benefits under the OTS scheme were also lost. Further, as the
present Respondent was still held eligible to repay the oustanding
sum of Rs. 11,44,773/- due to which the present Respondent was
allegedly faced mental shock and agony.
9) Being aggrived by the alleged deficiency in service by the

appellant the Respondent filed the original complaint before
District Forum, Satara,bearing Consumer Complaint No. 125/2014.
10) The present Appellant appeared through its advocate in the said
original complaint and filed its say. The present Appellant
catagorcally denied all the allegations made by the Respondent in
his original complaint and it also adduced the required evidence
for the same. It was strongly argued by the present Appellant that,
the original complaint was filed by the Respondent only in order
to evade from his legal liability and the Appellant bank has
properly appropriated each and every single rupee paid by the
Respondent for the repayment of his outstanding loan. The matter
was heard and decided by the president as well as members of
District Forum Satatra on 29/09/2017 and surprisingly to the
Appellant the said original complaint was partly allowed by
giving obnoxious relifs to the Respondents. The said order of the
Hon’ble District forum Satara, runs as follows:-
-:आदेश:-
(1) तक्रारदाराचा अर्ज अंशत: मंजुर करण्यात येतो.
(2) जाब देणार यांनी तक्रारदार यांना वादातील सर्व कर्जांपोटीचे ना हरकत प्रमाणपत्र
(NOC) द्यावी व गोठवलेली खाती पुर्ववत सुरू करावी
(3) जाब देणार यांनी तक्रारदार यांना मानसिक शारीरीक व तक्रार अर्जाच्या
खर्चापोटी रू. 3,000/- अदा करावीत.
(4) जाब देणार यांनी आदेश क्र. (2) व (3) ची पुर्तता निकालपत्र मिळालेपासून 45
दिवसात करावी.
(5) उभय पक्षकारांना निकालाच्या प्रती नि:शुल्क पुरविण्यात याव्यात.

11) Being Highly Aggreaved as well as dissaticefied by the
impuigned judgment of District Forum, Satara, the present
Appellant has preferred the present Appeal before the present
hon’ble commission.
12) GROUNDS FOR THE PRESENT APPEAL:-
A) That, the impugned Judgement of Hon’ble District Forum is

perverse, illegal, incorrect and not with conformity and
consistency of law, equity and principles of good conscience.
B) The Hon’ble District Forum ought to have considered the

written say, evidence and arguments of the appellant however,
the Ld. District Forum has acted arbitrarily and has passed a
very perverse and illegal judgement and order.
C) The Hon’ble District Forum has failed to take into

consideration that, the Respondent had opened the multiple loan
accounts in the Appellant bank and the Respondent has no-
where mentioned in his original complaint the exact
partioculars of the sums of money re-paid by him and for what
account. Moreover, the District forum has miserably failed to
consider that, the Appellent bank is a public sector bank and if
any of the conditions of any OTS scheme are not fulfilled then
the benefits of said OTS scheme can not given to the
concerned beneficiary. In the present case the Respondent has
admitted in his original complaint that, as per the mandate of
OTS Scheme introduced by the bank, he did not pay the interest
between the period from 22/12/2013 to 31/12/2014. Hence, he
had violated the very important condition of the said OTS
Scheme and hence, as of 22/02/2014, as there was still
outstanding balance over all the loan accounts of him, he lost
all the benefits of OTS scheme as introduced by the bank.
D) The Hon’ble District Forum has further erred in holding that,
the Appellant bank did not inform the Respondent regarding his
repayment of Rs. 35,000/- which he had made on 24/03/2011.
Infact, the true situation is that, the Respondent had repaid the
said sum for the outstanding amount of his only one loan
acconut i.e. 10108468688 and on 24/03/2011 itself the said
amount was credited to his said loan account. The Statement of
said loan account has been provided by the Appellant to the
Respondent from time to time ; and after year 2011, the
Respondent had not repaid any outstanding loan amount from
that account also till year 2013. The notices of Lok-Adalat were
issued by he Appellant in year 2013 and all the sums
mentioned in said notices were calculated only after proper
appropriation of all the earlier re-payments made by the present
Respondent. And this situation ought to have been considered
while passing the impugned judgment by the ld. District forum.
E) The Hon’ble District Forum has further made a grave mistake

of law by holding that, “As the Appellant bank has not made
efforts for recovery of loan amount due from the respondents
after the lok-adalat of 2013, it shall be presumed that, all the
dues of the Appellant bank have been recovered.” The District
forum while presuming the said circumstance, has completely,
overlooked to consider that, each and every sum of money due
from the present Respondent is the accounted sum of money.
All the relevant entires made by the bank in its books of accouts
are made in timely manner and rather it being the public sector
bank, it is the duty of the bank to secure every single rupee of it
as it is not its own money but it is the public money invested by
the general public in it. Moreover, the true fact is that, the bank
had also made continuous efforts to recover the outstanding
dues of the present respondent. But as the said fact was not the
question to be considered in original complaint, the present
Appellant did not make any pleading in its say or put forth any
evidence for the proof of said fact.
F) The Ld. District forum has further made a grave mistake of law
by holding that, “The Appellant has caused a serious deficiency
in service by not providing the detailes of accouts and NOC to
the present Respondent.” Actually, the ld. forum should have
considered that, once all the Loan accounts of the present
Respondent were declared as NPA by the bank, the relation of
Consumer and Service provider between the Appellant bank
and the Respondent had come to an end. The Bank had only
made a favor to the respondent by introducing the OTS Scheme
in Lok-Adalat in year 2013 just to avoid the unwanted and
expesnsive procedure of attachment and recovery. The grant of
concession in principle loan amount and interest by the
Appellant was not the right of the Respondent in any manner.
Moreover, eventhough the above fact, the appellant bank has
abide by all the conditions introduced by it in said OTS scheme
till 22/02/2014. But the Respodent himself has violated the said
condition by not clearing all the outstanding dues of the present
Appellant till 22/02/2014.
G) The Ld. District forum has further made a grave injustice

towards the present Appellant by holding that, “the appellant
has not provided the detailes of appropriation of payment of Rs.
35,000/- to the present Respondent which he had made in year
2011.” The Ld. District forum has actually neglected to
consider that, the present respondent had made the said
frevolous pleadings regarding payment of said Rs. 35,000/- in
his original complaint just to distract the court from his act of
willful default of payment of his outstanding dues. The
Respondent actually does not want to saticefy the loan of the
Appellant bank and in order to evade from the said liabilty, he
has played the tricks like filling the original complaint and
making the distractive statements in it.
H) Even otherwise also, the impugned judement and order of Ld.
District forum is bad in law and as such same is liable to be
quashed and set aside in the interest of justice, equity and good
conscience.
I) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify the

foregoing paras and ground as and when found necessary.
J) The appellant has paid the sufficient court fee stamp and
request permission to fulfill if any deficiency. The Appellant
has also done compliance of the section 15(2) by depositing Rs.
1,500/- with District Forum Satara.
K) The impugned judgement has been passed on 29/09/2017.

However, The present Appellant after looking after its normal
banking working hours was not able to apply for the Certified
Copy of the present judement till recent. Hence there is a small
delay of days in filling of the present appeal. Hecne
consideraing the Justice, Equity and Good Conscience, the said
delay may kindly be condoned and no prejudice shall be caused
to the Respondents if the said delay is condoned. On the
contrary, if it is not condoned, then it shall cause the great
hardship and injustice towards the present appellant. The
present Appellant has presented the present appeal with the
saperate application for the condonation of dealy.
13) HENCE, THIS APPELLANT MOST RESPECTFULLY

SUBMITS BEFPORE THIS HON’BLE COMMISSION
THAT,
A) The present appeal be allowed.
B) The impugned judgement and order dated 29/09/2017

passed by the District Forum, Satara be Quashed and Set
Aside in the interest of Justice.
C) Till the decision and final disposal of the present appeal, the
further execution and operation of the original order be
stayed.
D) Other Consequential Reliefs be granted in favor of present

appellants only.
Hecne this Appeal
Kolhapur
Date
-:VERIFICATION:-
I, Mr. Zunzar Jaysing Bhagat, Age. 55, Occ. Service, Agro

Development Branch, Satara, Deshmukh Colony, Sadar Bazar, Satara
Branch Manager of Appellant bank, residing at SBI, Agro
do hereby state on solemn affirmation that all the contents of above
mentioned Appeal are true and correct with the best of my knowledge
and belief. Hence verified today at Kolhapur.
Kolhapur
Date:
BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. of 2017
IN CC NO. 125/2014
State Bank of India, Development Branch ,

Satatra Through its Branch Manager ) APPELLANT
Mr.Zunzar Jaysing Bhagat
Vs.
Shekhar Sahebrao Jadhav ) RESPONDENT
-:AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL:-

do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that,
I am conservant with all the facts and circumstances of present

appeal and I am competent to swear this affidavit. The contents of this
appeal have been read over to me and that the facts contained in my
accompanying appeal, the grounds and contents which have not been
repeated herein for the sake of brevity may be read as an integral part
of this affidavit and are true and correct with the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Kolhapur
Date:
I know the deponent.

(Advocate for Appellant)
-:VERIFICATION:-
I, Mr. Zunzar Jaysing Bhagat, Age. 55, Occ. Service,

Agro Development Branch, Satara, Deshmukh Colony, Sadar Bazar,
Satara Branch Manager of Appellant bank, residing at SBI, Agro
affidavit are true and correct with the best of my knowledge and
belief. Hence verified today at Kolhapur.
Kolhapur
Date:
First Appeal No.

BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

Through its Br. Manager, APPELLANT
Mr. Zunzar Jaysing Bhagat,
Age, 55 Occ. Service
Versus
THE ADDRESS MEMO OF THE PRESENT APPELLANT IS AS FOLLOWS:-
Sr. No. Name of the Applicant Full Address
1 State Bank of India, Agro Development C/o. State Bank of India,

Branch, Satara Through Branch Manager Br. Agro Development
Mr. Zunzar Jaysingh Bhagat Branch,Satara, Deshmukh
Age. 55 Occu. Service Colony, Sadar Bazar,
Satara.
Hence this Address Memo.
On the Solomn Oath, I declare that, All the above information written in
this address memo is true and correct with the best of by knowledge and belief.
Kolhapur Declarent
Date
Date Of Filing / /2017 Set No. ___________

Date of Reg. / /2017 District __________
Date of Admission / /2017 Catagory __________
Bench No. __________________
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION MUMBAI
FIRST APPEAL No. /
State Bank of India, Br. Agro, ---- Appellant

Development Branch, Satara
Versus
Mr. Shekhar Sahebrao Jadhav ---- Respondent.
Advocate For Appellant /Applicant
Advocate For Respondant

First Appeal No.

BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

( State Bank of India is the Body Corporate APPELLANT

Constitute under “State Bank of /
APPLICANT India Act 1955”, having it’s Corporate
Office at Madam Cama Road,Nariman
Point, Mumbai and one of its branch office viz.
Agro Development Branch,
Satara, Deshmukh Colony, Sadar Bazar,
Satara)
Versus

Age – Major, Occu. Agriculturist RESPONDENT/
R/o. At Post Jalgaon, Tal. Koregaon, OPPONENT

Dist. Satara.
APPLICATION FOR STAY OF

OPERATION OF JUDGEMENT
PASSED IN DISTRICT FORUM ,
SATARA
THE PRESENT APPLICANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS AS

FOLLOWS:-
1) Whereas the present applicant has preffered the present

appeal for setting aside the judgement and order dated
29/09/2017 passed by Hon’ble District Forum, Satara in
Consumer Complaint No. 125/2014.
2) And Whereas the present respondent/Original Complainant

is likely to file the execution petition for the execution of the
impugned order before the Hon’ble District Forum, Satara,
the present application for stay of impugned order in
Consumer Complaint No. 125/2014 is preferred by present
applicant on following among other grounds. Those
grounds are as follows:-
Grounds:-
a) The present appeal may take a considerable time for its

hearing and disposal. Hence in the meantime if the
execution petition for the impunged order is filed by the
respondent in District Forum Satara and if any adverse order
for the execution for the impunged order will get passed in
said execution petition, then the main purpose of the present
appeal will be frustrated.
b) If the present application of stay is allowed then it will not

cause any loss to respondent while it may cause irreparable
loss to the appellant if the present application is not
considered.
c) The present appellant has a very good case in present appeal

hence on this count also the present application devserves to
be allowed.
3) HENCE IT IS RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT,
A) The present application for stay be allowed and the

appropriate order may kindly be passed to stay the operation
of impugned judgment and order passed by hon’ble District
Forum Satara in Consumer Case no. 125/2017 till final
hearing and disposal of present appeal.
B) Ad-Interim relief in terms of prayer (A) above be granted
C) Any other relief may kindly be passed in favor of present

appellant only.
Hence this application
Kolhapur
Dt / /2017
-:VERIFICATION:-

stay application are true and correct with the best of my knowledge
Kolhapur
Date:
-:AFFIDAVIT:-

do hereby solemnly affirm that, all the contents of above stay
application are true and correct with the best of my knowledge and
belief while para. no. 3 of this application is my humble prayer to this
hon’ble commission. Hence executed this affidavit today at Kolhapur.
Kolhapur
Date:
(Advocate for Appellant)

-:VERIFICATION:-

Kolhapur
Date:
.
BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

Through its Br. Manager Mr. Zunzar J. Bhagat APPELLANT
Versus
THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS

No.
1 Original Complaint i.e. Zerox Copy

CC No. 125/2014 dated
23/09/2014
2 Say of the Appellant to Zerox Copy

the original complaint
dated 02/03/2015
3 E-Circular of the Computerised

Appellant Bank dated Print
04/09/2013
3 Statement of Account of Computerised

A/c No. 10108468688 Print
between 01/01/2011 to
30/06/2011 dated
29/11/2017

A/c No. 10108468688 Print
dated 31/08/2015
A/c No. 30054180134 Print
dated 31/08/2015

A/c No. 30013431554 Print
dated 31/08/2015

A/c No. 30038472570 Print
dated 31/08/2015

A/c No. 30050932496 Print
dated 31/08/2015
9 Affidavit of Examination Zerox Copy

in Chief of Appellant in
original CC No. 125/2014
dated 29//09/2015
10 Written Arguments of Zerox Copy

Appellant in original CC
No. 125/2014 dated
29//09/2015
Hence The Index
Kolhapur
Date /
Application No.

BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

( State Bank of India is the Body Corporate APPLICANT

Constitute under “State Bank of
India Act 1955”, having it’s Corporate
Office at Madam Cama Road,Nariman Point,
Mumbai and one of its branch office viz.
Colony, Sadar Bazar, Satara)
Versus

Age – Major, Occu. Agriculturist OPPONENT
R/o. At Post Jalgaon, Tal. Koregaon,
Dist. Satara.
APPLICATION FOR
CONDONATION OF DELAY IN
FILLING THIS APPEAL
THE PRESENT APPELLANT/APPLICANT MOST RESPECTFULLY

SUBMITS AS FOLLOWS:-
1) The present appellant/applicant has preffered the present

appeal for setting aside the judgement and order dated
29/09/2017 passed by Hon’ble District Forum, Satara in
Consumer Complaint No. 125/2014.
2) The impugned judgment and order has been passed by

Hon’ble District Forum on 29/09/2017. hence, as per the
S. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, the present appeal
was required to be filed by the present appellant on or
before 29th of October 2017. But unfortunatelydue to
various reasons mentioned below, the present appellant
has caused the delay of days in filling the present
appeal. And for the purpose of justice, equity and good
conscience and consideraing the principles of natural
justice, the said dealy in filling this appeal is required to
be condoned on the following among other grounds.
Those grounds are:-
A) The the original complaint was decided on 29/09/2017,
the bank came to know about the impugned judgment
after 15th Oct 2017 when the advocate of the bank
informed it about the said judgement.
B) During the second half of the month October 2017, there

was Deewali Festival. Hence, due to said festival season,
there was shortfall of Staff in the appellant bank and at
the same time, there was a huge crowd of the customers
also in bank Hence, the Appellant bank was not able to
file the present appeal in the said period due to above
mentioned reasons.
C) Furthermore in the month of November 2017, the

appellant bank as well as other public sector banks were
instructed by the government to implement the scheme of
Waiver of Agro Loans. Hence, the huge crowd of
desirous benefeciaries of said scheme bursted the
appellant bank after the pronouncement of said scheme
as the present appellant bank is the primary bank in the
Satara Region who has delivered number of Agro loans.
Hence, due to such a huge work pressure, the present
appellant bank was not able to file the present appeal
from the month of November till recent.
D) The present appellant bank has naot caused the said delay
in filing the present appeal willfully or deliberately
E) The appellant respectfully submits that, While deciding

the present application, It may be considered that, the
present appellant is the public sector bank and the
concerned manager of the bank has no individual powers
to take any decision regarding filling of any appeal or
suit. He has to take consent of his superior officers to
take each and every decision regarding any legal matter
after communicating all the facts and circumstances with
the said office and said communication usually takes a
considerable time.
F) The further aspect which is required to be considered

while deciding the present application that, the present
appeal is required to be filled in Kolhapur and the
Kolhapur city is the distant place from Satara. In the
concerned branch of appellant bank of Satara, the present
Br. Manager Mr. Zunzar Bhagat is the only person who
has the sufficient powers to file the present appeal on
behalf of appellant bank as well as he is the only person
who’s presence is always required in bank also for the
same time to perform the day to day transactions of the
bank which require his biometric confirmations. Hence,
until his charge is handed over by the appellant bank for
some reason to any other staff member having sufficient
powers, he can not leave the bank’s premices. Hence, due
to above reasons also, the concerned Br. Manager of
appellant bank was unable to file the present appeal in
prescribed limitation.
G) If the present application is allowed then it will not cause

any loss or prejudice towards the respondent. On the
contrary if the present application is not considered, it
may cause a huge and irreparable loss to the appellant
bank.
H) The present appellant has a very good case in present

appeal hence on this count also the present application
devserves to be allowed.
I) HENCE IT IS RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT,
1) The present application of appellant be allowed and the

delay of days casued by the present appellant in
filling the present appeal may kindly be condoned and the
present appeal of the appellant may kindly be admitted.
2) Any other relief may kindly be passed in favor of present

appellant only.
Hence this application
Kolhapur
Dt / /2017
-:VERIFICATION:-

stay application are true and correct with the best of my knowledge
Kolhapur
Date:
BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
APPLICATION NO. of 2017
IN CC NO. 125/2014
State Bank of India, Development Branch ,

Satatra Through its Branch Manager ) APPLICANT
Mr.Zunzar Jaysing Bhagat
Vs.
Shekhar Sahebrao Jadhav ) OPPONENT
-:AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION:-

do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that,
I am conservant with all the facts and circumstances of present

application and I am competent to swear this affidavit. The contents of
this application and l have been read over to me and that the facts
contained in my accompanying application, the grounds and contents
which have not been repeated herein for the sake of brevity may be
read as an integral part of this affidavit and are true and correct with
the best of my knowledge and belief.
Kolhapur
Date:
(Advocate for applicant)
-:VERIFICATION:-
I, Mr. Zunzar Jaysing Bhagat, Age. 55, Occ. Service,

Agro Development Branch, Satara, Deshmukh Colony, Sadar Bazar,
Satara Branch Manager of applicant bank, residing at SBI, Agro
Kolhapur
Date:
APPLICATION No.

BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

Through its Br. Manager Mr. Zunzar J. Bhagat APPLICANT
Versus
Mr. Shekhar Sahebrao Jadhav, OPPONANT
INDEX

No.
1 Application for
Condonation of Delay
2 Affidavit in Support of
Application
3 Vakalatnama
4 Address Memo
5 Copy of Judgment passed

by Ho’ble District Forum
Satara in CC No.
125/2014 dated
29/09/2017
8 Application for Stay with
Affidavit.
APPLICATON No.

BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

Through its Br. Manager, APPLICANT
Mr. Zunzar Jaysing Bhagat,
Age, 55 Occ. Service
Versus
Mr. Shekhar Sahebrao Jadhav, OPPONENT
THE ADDRESS MEMO OF THE PRESENT APPLICANT IS AS FOLLOWS:-
Sr. No. Name of the Applicant Full Address
1 State Bank of India, Agro Development C/o. State Bank of India,

Branch, Satara Through Branch Manager Br. Agro Development
Mr. Zunzar Jaysingh Bhagat Branch,Satara, Deshmukh
Age. 55 Occu. Service Colony, Sadar Bazar,
Satara.
Hence this Address Memo.
On the Solomn Oath, I declare that, All the above information written in
this address memo is true and correct with the best of by knowledge and belief.
Kolhapur Declarent
Date
Date Of Filing / /2017 Set No. ___________
Date of Reg. / /2017 District SATARA
Date of Admission / /2017 Catagory BANKING
Bench No. __________________
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION MUMBAI
No. /
State Bank of India, Br. Agro, ---- Applicant

Development Branch, Satara
Versus
Mr. Shekhar Sahebrao Jadhav ---- Opponent.
Advocate For Appellant /Applicant
Advocate For Respondant/Opponent

Consumer Appeal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consumer Appeal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRST APPEAL No.

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE PRESIDENT, VICE

State Bank of India,

( State Bank of India is the Body Corporate APPELLANT

Mr. Shekhar Sahebrao Jadhav,

R/o. At Post Jalgaon, Tal. Koregaon,

The SYNOPSIS in respect of the present Appeal:-

1) The Respondent had filed the original complaint i.e. CC/125/2014

2) It is further contended by the respondent in his original complaint

3) There is another allegation of the Responent in his original

Hecne This Synopsis.

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE PRESIDENT, VICE

State Bank of India, Branch Satara,

Mr. Shekhar Sahebrao Jadhav, RESPONDENT

Sr. Particulars Remarks Page Nos.

Hence The Index

FIRST APPEAL No. OF 2017

State Bank of India, Branch Agro )

Mr. Shekhar Sahebrao Jadhav, )

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE

THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPELLANT MOST RESPECTFULLY

1) The Applicant No. 1 is the body corporate constituted under the

2) The Respondent had filed the original complaint i.e. CC/125/2014

Sr. Loan Account Type of Loan Loan Amount

3) It is further alleged by the respondent in his original ccopmaint

I) Loan A/c No. 10108468688

Under the said scheme, the special concession of Rs. 6, 748.88

II) Loan A/c No. 30008666388

Under the said scheme, the special concession of Rs. 26,912.25

III) Loan A/c No. 30054180134

Under the said scheme, the special concession of Rs. 13,533.75

Under the said scheme, the special concession of Rs. 17,657.50

V) Loan A/c No. 30038472570

Under the said scheme, the special concession of Rs. 24,010.25

VI) Loan A/c No. 30050855817

Under the said scheme, the special concession of Rs.

VII) Loan A/c No. 30050032496

Moreover, the mandates of the said scheme were that, In

4) It is further contended by the respondent in his original complaint that,

5) There is another allegation of the Responent in his original

6) It is further alleged by the Respondent is his original complaint

7) It is further alleged by the Respondent is his original complaint

8) It was the implied case of the present Respondent in original

9) Being aggrived by the alleged deficiency in service by the

(1) तक्रारदाराचा अर्ज अंशत: मंजुर करण्यात येतो.

(5) उभय पक्षकारांना निकालाच्या प्रती नि:शुल्क पुरविण्यात याव्यात.

12) GROUNDS FOR THE PRESENT APPEAL:-

A) That, the impugned Judgement of Hon’ble District Forum is

B) The Hon’ble District Forum ought to have considered the

C) The Hon’ble District Forum has failed to take into

E) The Hon’ble District Forum has further made a grave mistake

G) The Ld. District forum has further made a grave injustice

I) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify the

K) The impugned judgement has been passed on 29/09/2017.

13) HENCE, THIS APPELLANT MOST RESPECTFULLY

A) The present appeal be allowed.

B) The impugned judgement and order dated 29/09/2017

D) Other Consequential Reliefs be granted in favor of present

Hecne this Appeal

I, Mr. Zunzar Jaysing Bhagat, Age. 55, Occ. Service, Agro

FIRST APPEAL NO. of 2017

State Bank of India, Development Branch ,

Shekhar Sahebrao Jadhav ) RESPONDENT