Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1147/2014

HUZOOR MOHAMAD - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAMBAY MERCANTIE - Opp.Party(s)

06 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

               CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CC. NO-1147/14

In the matter of:
Sh. Huzoor Mohammad,

C/o Midwell transport & Contractor,

230/8, First Floor, ST 7, Ghaffar Manzil,

Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-110025.                                  

Complainant

Vs

Bombay Mercantile Co-operation Bank Limited.

(Through its DGM/CRM/RM/Manager/BR.MGR.)

36, Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj,

New Delhi-110002.

                                                                                                                  Opposite Party

 

                                                                                  DATE OF ADMISSION-18/12/2014

                                                                                 DATE OF ORDER       -03/06/2015

ORDER

SH. N.A.ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant availed an OD limit facility of Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondent Bank against the collateral security of his residential property through account No.10048. Due to loss in his business and crunches at the hands of respondent the business has to be wind up and information were given to the respondent. The respondent issued recovery notice on 21/11/2002 for Rs.4,49,419/- which was settled for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards the full and final settlement against the complainant and the amount of Rs.3,40,000/- were paid by the complainant up to 28/09/2004. Again a recovery notice was issued on 13/11/2004 for depositing the sum of Rs.1,10,000/- on or before 12/01/2006 by mutual consent, it was settled the entire balance amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid on 07/01/2005 and 28/02/2006 and the balance amount of the Rs.10,000/- was requested to be deposited from the share money of the complainant. Another notice was issued on 21/06/2013 for recovery of Rs.5,22,002.98 even after the settlement. The complainant was forced to pay further sum of Rs.65,000/- under duress. When the complainant contacted the respondent to know the above mentioned dues and came to know that the share money of the complainant was forfeited, where as the respondent never whispered about the abovementioned dues against the payment nonpayment of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant was not received any intimation/notice about the forfeiture of the share money. It is a clear case of unfair trade practice, breach of trust, and deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the complainant has prayed for refund of the excess charge of money and as well as refund of the entire interest amount which was charged by the Bank. The complainant has prayed for Rs.21,000/- towards the physical and mental harassment and Rs.11,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

            Respondent filed their reply wherein it is alleged that the borrower complainant account was put under NPA and he was issued notice on 21/06/2013 to repay the total overdue of Rs.5,22,002.98 (Rs.4,00,000/- as principal and 1,22,002.98 as interest) and arbitration case was also filed. This was settled for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- and extraordinary remission of Rs.98,891.95 was allowed and he was asked to pay within 60 days. He arranged only Rs.3,40,000/-. Again the bank had issued the notice for the recovery of Rs.10,000/- along with delayed period interest. The complainant agreed to pay the amount in two installments of Rs.50,000/- each and requested to adjust the share of Rs.10,000/- for the balance over due. It is a practice of the bank that whenever defaulter is approached for remission/rebate settlement, his share money held in the account is treated as forfeited. As such, the request was not acceded and the amount of Rs.10,000/- remained  over due and further interest piled up. As agreed the amount was settled for sum of Rs.65,000/-and the borrower has paid the amount Rs.65,000/- voluntary. The complainant got released all security documents and NOC was issued on 16/01/2014 and this complaint was filed on a frivolous ground. The complainant also filed the complaint before the Banking Ombudsmen RBI Building New Delhi-01 and was closed on24/04/2014. There is no deficiency in service.

            We have provided opportunity to both the parties. Evidence has been filed by way of affidavit. The short question which arises in this complaint for our consideration is as to whether the amount of Rs.10,000/- which the complainant has requested to be adjusted at the time of the settlement of the account could it all be forfeited by the respondent Bank in the absence of the contract. Contrary, the Ld. Counsel for the complainant pointed out that in Para 2 at page 3 of the reply, the respondent has referred the practice of the bank in case of default and settlement about the forfeiting of share money. This is sufficient to infer there is no agreement between the parties regarding the rights of the bank to forfeit the share money if the account holder request for the settlement of the dues. The respondent have filed on record the document regarding the OD facility allowed the agreement for over draft facility, the agreement of hypothecation of booked debts. The Ld. Counsel for the parties fails to point out any conditions covenant between the parties which could empower the bank to forfeit the share money. The respondent Ld. Cl. submitted that this fact is admitted that the complainant has settled the issue with the bank and have paid Rs.65,000/- voluntary as such he could not question the forfeiture of the share money now. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant was under pressure on account of recovery, the amount of Rs.65,000/- within the Bank would have not returned which were in possession of the Bank is illegal act cannot pertained of any act and omission of the party. This is clear from the pleadings as well as from the documents on record that the bank was never been authorized by any terms and conditions to forfeit the share money. More so, when the complainant requested for the adjustment of the share money is admitted by the respondent. No reason has been given or brought on record by the respondent under what circumstances his request was turned down for the adjustment of the share money and if it was not done so how they issue the recovery against the complainant and ask him to pay the settlement amount of Rs.65,000/-. The entire procedure adjusted by the bank points to only one thing that they were indulging in unfair trade practice. The recovery of Rs.65,000/- in the above circumstances is wholly illegal, the complainant deserves to be returned back by the respondent.

            We allow this complaint. We direct the respondent bank to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.65,000/- with 9% interest thereon  from the date of deposit by the complainant till it is finally refunded to the complainant. We further award sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards compensation on account of harassment, mental pain and agony. This shall also include the cost of litigation.

The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.