Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/164/2018

Ramesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asha Khatri branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Mahipal Tanwar

07 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

  CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.      164 of 2018

                                DATE OF INSTITUTION:                06.12.2018

                                          DATE OF ORDER:                          07.03.2024                         

 

1. Ramesh  2. Naseeb  3. Rughraj  4. Rajesh son of Sh. Hari Singh, residents of village Basana Tehsil Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Biswedar of village Kharak Khurd, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

          ……Complainants.

 

Versus

 

1. Asha Khatri, Branch Manager, Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Kharak Kalan, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

2. Sajjan Singh, Chief Manager, Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Plot No.1, Sector-3, Rohtak.

 

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 1986.

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-        Sh. Mahipal Tanwar, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. P.K. Punia, Advocate for OP.

 

ORDER

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member:

 

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainants approached the OP No.1 for grant of Kisan Credit Card facility against their land, in their names on 27.04.2017. The required documents viz. No Dues Certificate, search report and other documents, as demanded by OP were submitted to them on 17.07.2017.  Upon which, OP No.1 called them on 02.08.2017 to 30.08.2017, six times, complainants went to the bank during this period but OP No.1 refused to grant the KCC facilities to complainants without any sufficient cause and reasons. So, complainants approached OP No.2 but of no avail rather vide letter dated 28.09.2017, the KCC was denied on the grounds that during investigation it was reveals that the ownership/possession of the land in question is disputed and the matter is sub-judice. Under these circumstances, we are not in position to sanction KCC limit.  In this regard, complainant sought information under RTI but the same declined vide letter dated 07.11.2017. The matter was raised through CM Window but the OP given their same reply. Banking Ombudsman-II, New Delhi also rejected the matter on 19.01.2018 observing dispute qua ownership and possession over the property and that the matter is under sub-judice. Thereafter, complainant moved application before Tehsildar, Bhiwani to provide title of land owned and possessed by complainant, upon which, Patwari Halqa after verifying the facts made a report that Naseeb and Ramesh Kumar sons of Sh. Hari Singh S/o Bakhtavar have ownership over khewat nos. 116,154,157,167,168,169,170 & 194 as per jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 and the property if free from any loan/encumbrance. Thus complainants has submitted that OPs have illegally and unlawfully rejected KCC facilities to them for which they have spent Rs.40,000/- on this process and have been harassed at the hands of OPs. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainants seeking directions against the OPs to release KCC facilities to them with immediate effect, to pay compensation Rs.1.00 lac on account of harassment and financial loss and to pay Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation expenses. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and tendered a joint written statement raising preliminary objections qua locus standi, cause of action, maintainability of complaint, complainants consumer under the C.P. Act, and suppression of material facts. It is submitted that complainants approached OP Bank in April 2017 for KCC Limit. During the process, some other person (a tractor dealer) visited the branch and passed himself as Rajesh brother of Ramesh Parmar, this according to the then Branch Manager, Asha Khatri was an attempt at impersonation as it was the tractor dealer, who was carried out the entire paper process.  Enquiry was made by Shri Nand Kishore, Assistant Manager, in OP bank branch at Kharak Kalan where three persons Brijpal son of Jai Bhagwan, Narender Singh son of Mahabir and Parveen Kumar son of Shri Omvir Singh disclosed the dispute and litigations regarding the land in question and since the land in question was disputed as the borrowers did not have physical possession or cultivating rights though owners as per revenue record and in regard to ownership possession of land, the OP received a copy of judgment dated 16.12.2011 by Addl. Civil Judge (SD), Bhiwani as well as partial appeal (first and last page) dated 07.07.2015 against the judgment dated 16.12.2011 which established that the matter was sub-judiced. As such, the KCC facility was denied to the complainants. In the end, prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint with costs.

3.                 Ld. counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of  complainant Sh. Rajesh Panwar as Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-66 and closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other side, learned counsel for OPs tendered in evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-20 and closed the evidence.

5.                 We   have   heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record carefully.   Written arguments filed on behalf of OPs.

6.                 At the outset, the OPs have admitted that complainants came to their bank for getting KCC facilities. But the OP bank denied for such facilities to complainants vide letter dated 28.09.2017 (Annexure C-2) on grounds that the KCC was denied on the grounds that during investigation it was reveals that the ownership/possession of the land in question is disputed and the matter is sub-judice. Under these circumstances, we are not in position to sanction KCC limit.  Complainant to rebut this letter has placed on record report of Halqa Patwari endorsed by Naib Tehsildar, Bhiwani dated 16.02.2018 (Annexure C-5) wherein it is mentioned that Naseeb Singh and Ramesh Kumar sons of Sh. Hari Singh S/o Bakhtavar have ownership over khewat nos. 116,154,157,167,168,169,170 & 194 as per jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 and the property if free from any encumbrance. 

7.                 In view of the above, we are of considered opinion that rejection of the KCC facilities to the complainants have been denied by the OPs illegally and arbitrary. However, as per report of Naib Tehsildar, Bhiwani, complainants No.1 & 2 were entitled to get such facilities, however, they have also been denied by the OPs which amounts to gross negligence as well as deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Perusal of record reveals that the complainants have to raise for redressal of their grievance before various authorities for a long time, to which they must have incur handsome amount and their valuable time. Had the OPs provided the KCC facilities to complainants before knocking the doors of this Commission, they must not have dragged into this litigation.  Such, act and conduct of OPs has harassed the complainant mentally as well as physically and has to suffer financial hardship. As such, the complaint is partly allowed and OPs, jointly and severally, are liable to pay compensation to the complainants No.1 & 2 within 40 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) to the complainants No.1 & 2 as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment, in equal share.  

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- (Rs.Five thousand five hundred) as litigation expenses to complainants No.1 & 2 proportionately.

                    In case of default, the OPs shall liable to pay simple interest @ 9% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated: 07.03.2024.