The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed an appeal filed by the State Bank of India (SBI) and upheld an earlier order against the bank in a Delhi Development Authority (DDA) housing case.
The commission found SBI responsible for delaying the payment required for a DDA flat. Because of the delay, the customer had to pay an additional ₹1.21 lakh to DDA.
Housing Loan Taken from SBI
The case relates to Paritosh Kumar, a resident of Haridwar, who was allotted a flat in Rohini, Delhi, under the DDA Housing Scheme, 2014.
Kumar had taken a housing loan of ₹13.50 lakh from SBI. Out of this amount, ₹12.69 lakh had to be deposited with DDA for the flat.
Payment Sent to Wrong Account
According to the case details, SBI transferred the ₹12.69 lakh on August 27, 2015, to an account described by the commission as the “disputed account” instead of DDA’s account.
The amount was returned to SBI on February 24, 2016. It was finally deposited into the DDA account on April 24, 2016. Because of the delay, DDA later demanded an additional ₹1.21 lakh from Kumar.
District Commission Ordered SBI to Pay
Kumar approached the District Consumer Commission in Haridwar. On August 13, 2019, the district commission directed SBI to reimburse the ₹1.21 lakh to Kumar.
It also ordered the bank to pay 6% simple interest on the amount from September 7, 2016, the date when the complaint was filed, until the payment was made. SBI was also directed to pay ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses.
SBI Challenged the Order
SBI appealed against the district commission’s decision. The bank argued that it had used the account details provided by Kumar and that the delay was not its responsibility.
The state commission, however, rejected this argument. It observed that the debit voucher signed by Kumar did not prove that he had provided the disputed account number.
The commission also noted that Kumar’s letter dated August 26, 2015, only asked SBI to transfer ₹12.69 lakh to DDA. The letter did not mention the disputed account number.
Commission Finds Lack of Evidence
The state commission said SBI had not produced reliable evidence to show that it informed Kumar after the money was returned to the bank.
The commission also found that SBI did not show that it had made timely efforts to transfer the money to DDA after the amount was returned.
The commission further held that DDA could not be held responsible because there was no evidence that it had provided the disputed account number.
SBI’s Appeal Dismissed
The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission concluded that the delay in payment and the financial loss suffered by Kumar were due to deficiency in service by SBI.
The commission therefore dismissed SBI’s appeal and upheld the district commission’s order. SBI remains responsible for paying ₹1.21 lakh along with 6% simple interest and ₹5,000 in litigation expenses, as directed by the district commission.
