BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.291/16.

Date of instt.: 20.09.2016. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 04.07.2017.

Gurnam Singh Son of Sh. Shingara Singh, R/o H.No.101, Gali No.1, Friends Colony, Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.     

                                        Versus

Allahabad Bank, 828-829/1, Opp. Corporation Bank, Ambala Road, Kaithal, Branch Code-1946, through it’s Branch Manager.

..……..Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Dinesh Tayagi, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. R.K.Nagpal, Advocate for the Op.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant is doing the work of painter in the name of Guru Painter and he has availed CC limit vide account No.50031461996 in the Op bank.  It is alleged that while availing the service of CC limit from Op Bank, the complainant entrusted some original documents to Op bank for CC limit purpose i.e. sale deed of house of complainant, I.T.R., search report and revenue record etc.  It is further alleged that at the time of original documents entrusted to the bank, it was assured that after clearance of account, all the original documents will be returned to the complainant by the bank without any delay.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Op bank to close his CC limit account and asked for due balance amount on 14.09.2016 but the Op did not do so.  This way, the Op is deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant availed O.D. limit from the Op bank and he deposited the deeds of his property with other relevant documents with the Op bank by way of collateral security; that the complainant stood guarantor for a loan given to Om Parkash son of Sh. Nigahiya Ram for purchasing a commercial vehicle and now this commercial vehicle loan is NPA in the books of account and in case of non-payment of outstanding amount by original borrower Om Parkash, the guarantor i.e. complainant shall be liable to repay the outstanding amount to the bank and his immovable property already stands equitably mortgaged with the Op bank by the complainant shall be liable for the payment of this loan also; that even the loan/limit taken by the complainant himself has not been fully liquidated till date and as such, the present complaint is pre-mature.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence on 02.02.2017.  On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed evidence on 05.04.2017.   

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

5.     Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint.  He argued that the complainant is doing the work of painter in the name of Guru Painter and he has availed CC limit vide account No.50031461996 in the Op bank.  He further argued that while availing the service of CC limit from Op Bank, the complainant entrusted some original documents to Op bank for CC limit purpose i.e. sale deed of house of complainant, I.T.R., search report and revenue record etc.  He further argued that the complainant requested the Op bank to close his CC limit account and asked for due balance amount on 14.09.2016 but the Op neither closed the account nor returned the original documents to the complainant.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted a catena of authorities cited in S.C. & National Commission Consumer Law Cases (1996-2005) page 525 (NC) titled as S.B.I. & others Vs. Ananda Mohan Saha; 2005(1) CLT page 224 (State Commission Pondicherry) titled as Pondy Polymers (P) Ltd. Vs. The Branch Manager and 2003 (1) CLT page 542 (Gujarat State Commission) titled as Rajkot Nagrik Bank Ltd. Vs. Piyush Ratilal Thakkar.  On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op argued that the complainant availed O.D. limit from the Op bank and he deposited the deeds of his property with other relevant documents with the Op bank by way of collateral security.  He further argued that the complainant stood guarantor for a loan given to Om Parkash son of Sh. Nigahiya Ram for purchasing a commercial vehicle and now this commercial vehicle loan is NPA in the books of account and in case of non-payment of outstanding amount by original borrower Om Parkash, the guarantor i.e. complainant shall be liable to repay the outstanding amount to the bank and his immovable property already stands equitably mortgaged with the Op bank by the complainant shall be liable for the payment of this loan also.  He further argued that the complainant has executed a document Ex.R2 regarding guarantor of above-said Om Parkash.  He further argued that even the loan/limit taken by the complainant himself has not been fully liquidated till date and as such, the present complaint is pre-mature.       

6.     From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that there is no dispute that the complainant has availed a CC limit with the Op bank and deposited the original documents i.e. sale deed of house, I.T.R., search report, revenue record etc.  There is also no dispute that the complainant had stood guarantor for a loan to Om Parkash son of Nigahiya Ram, as is clear from the document Ex.R2.  The complainant alleged that on 14.09.2016, he made a request to the Op for closing his CC limit account and asked for due balance amount.  The complainant has not placed on the file any copy of such request.  Whereas, the complainant placed a statement of account regarding his CC limit which shows that Rs.2,01,800/- were drawn by him from the said CC limit account.  The Op has also placed the copies of statements of account of the CC limit of the complainant, which also show that the complainant has drawn Rs.2,01,800/- from his CC limit account.  From these facts, it is clear that the complainant has not fully liquidated his CC limit account.  At the time of arguments, the Op has produced the copy of statement of account of the CC limit of the complainant from 07.01.2017 to 02.05.2017, which clearly shows that the complainant has not fully liquidated the CC limit account even upto 02.05.2017.  In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that without fully clearing the CC limit account, the complainant is not entitled for the return of original documents and the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Op.  The authorities produced by the complainant are not applicable to the facts of present case. 

7.     Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.04.07.2017.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.