Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/18/69

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANSHUL KAURAV - Opp.Party(s)

SH.S.GOSWAMI

27 Apr 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

 

FA No.69 / 2018.

 

 

Punjab National Bank,

Branch Narsinghpur,

Through Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Branch Narsinghpur (M.P.).                                               …. APPELLANT.

 

 

                        Versus

 

1.         Anshul Kaurav,

s/o Shri Swatantra Kaurav,

R/o Narsingh Ward,

Near Reliance Petrol Pump,

Karaili, District Narsinghpur,

Madhya Pradesh.

 

2.         Amit Kaurav,

            s/o Shri Swatantra Kaurav,

            R/o Narsingh Ward,

            Near Reliance Petrol Pump,

            Karaili, District Narsinghpur,

            Madhya Pradesh.                                                    …. RESPONDENTS.

 

 

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :

 

 

Date of           ORDER                                

Order                                                                                                

 

27.04.2022                None for the parties.

                                    Perused the impugned order.

                                    This appeal arises out of the order dated 13.4.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Narsinghpur (for short the

 

• 2 -

 

“District Commission”) in CC No.49/2017 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the respondents / complainants and issued following directions :-

                      

                        2.         Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant / Bank has filed this appeal.

                        3.         Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the respondents agriculturists had, after mortgaging their land, obtained loan from the appellant / Bank.  The loan amount was fully repaid by them to the Bank.  A ‘No Objection Certificate” was issued on 13.1.2017 by the Senior Manager of the appellant / Bank and the loan account was closed.  In pursuance to the repayment of the entire loan amount the respondents - complainants approached to the Sub-Registrar, Karaili, District Narsinghpur.  The Sub-Registrar informed the respondents - complainants to keep the officer of appellant present so that the necessary reconveyance deed of the mortgage can be executed.  On this the respondents / complainants made several

 

• 3 -

 

requests to the appellant / Bank for keeping present its officer in the office of the Sub-Registrar for executing reconveyance deed, but the appellant / Bank paid no heed to the said request.  Feeling aggrieved the respondents / complainants approached to the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and seeking compensation for the same.

                        4.         The District Commission after considering the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties allowed the complaint as aforesaid.  Challenging the said order the appellant has filed this appeal.

                        5.         We have perused the impugned order and the record.

                        6.         On going through the impugned order as also the record it is evident that after making repayment of the entire loan amount the respondents / complainants had approached in the office of the Sub-Registrar where they were informed that for getting the recoveyance deed the authorized representative of the appellant is required to be remain present and unless both the parties are present the same cannot be executed and registered.  On this several requests were made by the respondents / complainants, but the appellant failed to pay any heed to it.  It is also apparent that for remaining present the Sub-Registrar had also issued a letter to the appellant / Bank which was though received by the Bank but of no avail.  In the circumstances, it is clear that there was deficiency on the part of the appellant in not performing

- 4 -

 

their duty for getting the reconveyance deed executed in favour of the respondents / complainants as they had already repaid the entire loan amount, and as a result they committed deficiency in service causing mental and physical agony to the respondents.

7.         In this view of the matter we find no infirmity in the impugned order.

8.         The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

9.         No order as to costs.

 

 

(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)      (Shyam Sunder Bansal)    (Dr. Srikant Pandey)  

^{PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                MEMBER}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phadke