DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 509/2015
Date of Institution : 16.09.2015
Date of Decision : 17.05.2016
1. Harjinder Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh Resident of VPO Hamidi Tehsil & Distt. Barnala (Punjab).
2. Jaswinder Kaur W/o Harjinder Singh Resident of VPO Hamidi Tehsil & Distt. Barnala (Punjab).
…Complainant
Versus
1. The Bank Manager, ICICI, Near Old Bus Stand, Barnala (Punjab).
2. The General Manager, ICICI Bank situated at Landmark, Race Course Circle, Vadodara, 390007 India (Regd. Office).
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Harjinder Singh complainant No. 1 in person.
Sh. Anuj Mohan counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Shri Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainants namely Harjinder Singh and Jaswinder Kaur have filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the Act) against the Bank Manager ICICI and the General Manager ICICI Bank. (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant is a farmer and a permanent resident of Village Hamidi District Barnala. He contacted to the Bank Manager, ICICI, Branch Barnala for a loan against his land as he is the owner of the agriculture land measured 32 Kanals 0 Marla situated in Village Sandhu Khurd Tehsil Phul Distt. Bathinda bearing Hadbast No. 442 in the Jamabandi for the year 2009-10. It is further averred that after verification of all facts, a mortgage deed was registered in the name of ICICI Bank, Barnala in lieu of Rs. 19,03,000/- bearing Report No. 488 dated 22.7.2013 and all formalities have been completed and mortgage deed was sent to the revenue department for entry of mortgage. He further averred that the above said mortgage was registered before the Registering Authority, Sub Registrar, Phul, Bathinda in lieu of Rs. 19,03,000/- but the bank authorities has paid Rs. 12,97,000/- and Rs. 6,06,000/- is still pending with the bank. It is further averred that the bank authorities assured that the balance amount will be paid in yearly installments but no payment is released in his favour. Therefore, he approached to the Bank Manager many times but invain. Now the Bank Manager clearly refused for payment of the balance amount. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) To pay the remaining amount of Rs. 6,06,000/-.
2) To pay Rs. 10,000/- on cost of visiting various offices etc.
3) To pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment and mental agony.
4) To pay Rs. 7,000/- as fee of the legal advisor.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties have filed a joint written statement taking preliminary objections firstly on the ground that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature and liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. Secondly, the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true facts. Thirdly, the present complaint is not maintainable and the complainant has unnecessary dragged the opposite parties into litigation without any cause of action.
4. On merits it is submitted that the complainant was granted credit facility of Rs. 19,03,000/- under KCC category against his property subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement executed by complainant in their favour. The facility was granted as per the schedule. As per the schedule the complainant can withdraw maximum Rs. 13,30,000/- in first year, Rs. 14,30,000/- in second year, Rs. 15,73,000/- in third year, Rs. 17,30,000/- in fourth year and Rs. 19,03,000/- in fifth year (10% increase every year of last withdrawal amount). It is further averred that the said increase is permissible if all the conditions are fulfilled i.e timely payment of interest as well as timely deposit of facility amount. In the present case the complainants have violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and has not made the timely payment of interest as well as the deposit of entire credit facility in his account and now there is debit balance of Rs. 13,41,939.40 as on 16.11.2015. Moreover, the complainant is still enjoying the credit facility and the complainant was made clearly that his facility shall be increased as per schedule, if they honour the commitment of timely payment of interest as well as principal amount. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to prove their case, complainant No. 1 has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of driving license Ex.C-2, copy of jamabandi Ex.C-3, copy of statement of account Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.
6. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Vinay Kumar Authorized Signatory Ex.OP-1, copy of facility intimation letter dated 22.7.2013 Ex.OP-2, copy of customer declaration Ex.OP-3, copy of application form Ex.OP-4, copy of declaration submitted by borrower Ex.OP-5, copy of account statement Ex.OP-6 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through all the record on the file carefully.
8. The case of the complainant is that he is a farmer and he got a loan of Rs. 19,03,000/- under the Cash Credit Limit from the opposite parties and in lieu of that the opposite party bank mortgaged his land measuring 32 Kanals. That he is paying the loan installments on regular basis without any default. However, the bank has advanced only Rs. 12,97,000/- and remaining amount of Rs. 6,06,000/- has not been yet advanced despite requesting the opposite parties many times.
9. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the complainant was granted credit facility of Rs. 19,03,000/- under KCC category against his property but subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the schedule the complainant can withdraw maximum Rs. 13,30,000/- in first year, Rs. 14,30,000/- in second year, Rs. 15,73,000/- in third year, Rs. 17,30,000/- in fourth year and Rs. 19,03,000/- in fifth year. The learned counsel for the opposite parties further submitted that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and has not made the timely payment of interest as well as the deposit of entire credit facility and has failed to honour the agreement.
10. Before adverting the contentions of the parties it is relevant to refer the documents placed on record by both the parties. Ex.C-1 is the affidavit of the complainant Harjinder Singh. Ex.C-3 is the copy of jamabandi for the year 2009-10 showing both the complainants as co-owners in the land measuring 182 Kanals 15 Marlas to the extent of 72/731 each. It is also not disputed by the opposite parties that the land of the complainants was mortgaged with them for the cash credit limit of Rs. 19,03,000/-.
11. On the other hand the opposite parties has placed on record affidavit of Vinay Kumar Authorized Signatory of ICICI Bank Limited Ex.OP-1 reiterating their stand as taken in their written version. Ex.OP-2 is the facility Intimation Letter dated 22.7.2013 showing the schedule of the KCC Limit. Ex.OP-3 is the customer declaration for KCC application showing the advancing requirement of the complainant. Ex.OP-4 is the final application form for advancing financing facilities. Perusal of the same shows that the bank has agreed to provide facility amount not exceeding in the aggregate Rs. 19,03,000/- and it is on 22.7.2013. It also contains terms and conditions to be followed by the complainants. Ex.OP-5 is the declaration submitted by the complainant stating therein that this facility shall not exceed in the aggregate of Rs. 19,03,000/- at any time. Ex.OP-6 is the statement of the account of the complainant.
12. There is no dispute that the complainant has mortgaged his land measuring 32 Kanals for taking advance of Rs. 19,03,000/- from the opposite parties. The documents on the file signed by both the parties as referred above shows that the facility of Rs. 19,03,000/- would be provided to the complainant as per schedule i.e in the first year maximum amount Rs. 13,30,000/-, in the second year, Rs. 14,30,000/-, third year Rs. 15,73,000/-, fourth year Rs. 17,30,000/- and in the fifth year Rs. 19,03,000/-. Perusal of the statement Ex.C-4 shows that on 6.8.2013 an amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- has been advanced under KCC Limit to the complainant i.e the advance in the first year. Perusal of the statement further shows that on 25.7.2015 the withdrawals were shown of Rs. 44,75,672.40 whereas deposits were made for Rs. 31,88,310/- leaving the balance Rs. 12,87,362.40 as debit balance. This statement further shows that this covers the period from 5.8.2013 to 25.7.2015.
13. It is the case of the opposite parties that after the second year the permissible limit is Rs. 14,30,000/- and in the third year the permissible limit is Rs. 15,73,000/-. The contention of the complainant that the advance as permissible by schedule is not allowed to be given despite his regularly paying the installments.
14. The contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant is not maintaining the financial discipline i.e complainant is not paying the installments and interest regularly. This contention is untenable as the opposite parties has led no evidence to show that the complainant has not paid the installments/interest of such and such months. Even, no averment in the written version or in the affidavit has been taken to show that the complainant has made violation of any terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement. If the complainant has violated any terms and conditions then it becomes the duty of the opposite parties to specifically take the plea of such violation so that the plea of the complainant that he was paying the installments regularly could be rebutted. The onus to prove that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions was upon the opposite parties and the opposite parties have miserably failed to prove their plea of violation of terms and conditions by not producing any cogent evidence in this regard.
15. The statement Ex.C-4 clearly shows that the debit balance on 25.7.2015 was Rs. 12,87,362.40 whereas the limit was started in the month of August 2013 and this shows that even after the expiry of two years the advance has not been increased by the opposite parties as per schedule which is clear cut deficiency in service on their part.
16. As a result of above discussion the present complaint is accepted to the extent that the opposite parties are directed to advance the loan to the complainant No. 1 as per agreement/schedule. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant No. 1 as compensation for mental agony and harassment.This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
17th Day of May 2016
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
