The West Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by Bimla Makin, asked the bank to pay the money to Delhi resident S Kochhar for receiving double payment of EMI for the months of March and April, 2011.
The forum, however, observed that the complainant had not disclosed the entire facts as he himself had asked SBI for the change in mode of payment of EMIs from cheques to deposit transfer from his savings account maintained with the bank.
"The complainant has not disclosed this fact in his complaint and has hidden the relevant fact. Impact of this transition in the payment terms and its processing time as well as return of unused cheques must have been agreed between both parties involved in the transaction and effected upon.
"...However, it is apparent that in the process, Opposite Party (OP) has received EMI payment twice for the months of March and April, 2011, but the same was accounted for in statement of account given to the complainant.
"Thus, OP (bank) is only deficient on account of receiving double payment of EMI for month of March and April, 2011," the forum said.
The forum, also comprising its member Urmila Gupta, noted that EMI payments for the months of March and April 2011 were transition period for change in mode of payment from cheque to deposit transfer from the bank account.
Kochhar had told the forum that he took a home loan from the bank for which EMI of Rs 30,336 was to be paid by him and he had deposited advance post-dated cheques with the bank for timely payment of EMIs.
He told that there was timely payment of EMI's without any default since the loan was received by him.
He said that he had paid the EMI for month of March 2011 through cheque to the bank but despite this, Rs 30,336 was deducted from his saving account.
Similarly, in the next month the bank again deducted Rs 30,336 from his account despite the payment of EMI through cheque, the complainant said, adding a sum of Rs 60,672 was unlawfully debited from his account.
Kochhar further told the forum that due to deduction of Rs 60,672 from his account, a cheque of Rs 21,000 issued by him was returned unpaid by the bank on May 27, 2011 due to insufficient fund resulting in criminal liability for him.
He had approached the forum seeking direction to the bank to pay Rs 10,000 which was paid by him to settle the criminal liability and a compensation of Rs 90,000 towards rendering deficient services and mental agony.
However, the bank opposed the plea saying that Kochhar did not place on record the entire facts of the case.