Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/126/2019

Sant Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Ajay Verma

15 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No. 112 of 2019

                                                         Date of Institution: 12.4.2019

                                                          RBT No. 126 of 24.9.2019

                                                          Date of Decision: 15.11.2023

 

Sant Kumar son of Sh. Bal Kishan resident of Vidya Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

                                                                   ….Complainant.

Versus

 

Bank of india, Charkhi Dadri Branch, near Bus Stand, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri, through its Branch Manager.

 

•  

 

                   COMPLAINT UNDER THE

                   CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -   Hon’ble Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President

                Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:      Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh. Karamvir Singh Chhikara, Adv. for OP.

 

ORDER:-    

               

                  Sant Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) has filed the present complaint against the opposite the party (hereinafter referred to as “the OP) with the averments that the complainant is running his proprietary firm in the name and style of M/s Baba Tyres and he had availed a loan for above said firm from the OP bank. Smt. Kaushalya Devi wife of Naresh Kumar and resident of Bhiwani, stood guarantor in the said loan. She (Kaushalya Devi) also availed a loan for her firm i.e. Baba Trading Company, Charkhi Dadri. It is averred that due to financial crises, both the loan accounts fall in NPA category and zonal office of the OP had sanctioned OTS for Rs. 50 Lacs for deposit of amount upto 30.9.2017. It is averred that after sanction of OTS, guarantor Smt. Kaushalya Devi deposited Rs. 5 Lacs with the OP bank and upon this, the OP bank issued letter dated 17.11.2017 asking her to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 45 Lacs with interest of Rs. 80,000/- upto 12.12.2017. The OP vide their letter dated 11.1.2018 also requested to Kaushalya Devi to deposit the required amount and hence, the same was deposited by the complainant against the OTS and the original documents were returned and no dues certificate was also issued by the OP.

2.             In the meantime, the insurance policy purchased by the complainant through the OP from BOI AXA Investment Managers Pvt. Limited, for sum assured of Rs. 1,00,000/-got matured on 5.1.2018 and an amount of Rs. 1,18,358.20 was transferred into the account of complainant by said BOI AXA Investment Managers Pvt. Limited but the OP failed to adjust the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,18,358.20 ps against the OTS offer nor paid the aforesaid to the complainant despite repeated requests of complainant. Hence, by alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant seeks directions against the OP to make the payment of maturity amount of policy i.e. Rs. 1,18,358.20 ps along with interest, compensation and the litigation expenses besides any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled.

3.                Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed the written contending that Smt. Kaushalya Devi failed to deposit Rs. 45.80 Lacs upto 12.12.2017 with the OP and as such, the OP was entitled to recover the same from the complainant as well as other liable parties of the accounts including said Smt. Kaushalya Devi. However it is admitted by the OP in its written statement that on 5.1.2018, the policy purchased by the complainant was matured and an amount of Rs. 1,18,358.20 was transferred in the loan account of complainant  but on that day, no OTS proposal was subsisting and the OP even after expiry of the period of OTS proposal with Smt. Kaushalya Devi was sympathetic to again go with fresh OTS on her request.   Accordingly, again OTS proposal was prepared for Rs 51,80,300/- - Rs. 5,00,000/-equal to Rs. 46,80,300/-and this proposal amount had not included Rs. 1,18,358.20 ps which already stood credited. It is averred that the amount of Rs. 1,18,358.20 ps was credited in the account of complainant as recovery amount of the OP on 5.1.2018 and was adjusted against the amount of OP outstanding against complainant in his loan account. The compromise proposal earlier entered with Smt. Kaushalya Devi was revoked as she failed to deposit the amount granted to her by the bank within the required period. As such, on 5.1.2018, the amount credited in the account of M/s Baba Tyres was adjusted as part of recovery of amount which was due and outstanding in the loan account and the complainant has no right to demand the amount of Rs. 1,18,358.20 ps from the OP. It is also averred that on account of OTS, the bank has suffered a loss of Rs. 16,76,371.33 ps and as such, there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the OP.

4.                In his evidence, the complainant tendered his own affidavit Ex. CW-1/A and documents Annexure P-1 to Annexure P-10 and closed his evidence on 9.2.2021.

5.                On the other hand, the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-8 and closed the evidence on 16.8.2022.

6.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. All the documents have been perused carefully and minutely.

7.              During the course of arguments, the learned counsel of complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint filed by the complainant and has drawn the attention of this Commission towards the documents placed on record on his behalf. The learned counsel for the OPs also reiterated the contents of written statement filed OPs and also drawn the attention of this Commission towards the documents placed on record by the OPs.

8             After going through the submissions of the parties and evidence placed on file, we have gathered that a cash credit limit facility for Rs. 30 lacs was sanctioned by the OP Bank in favour of M/s Baba Tyres and complainant was proprietor of the firm and Smt. Kaushalya Devi executed the necessary security documents for and on behalf of M/s Baba Trading Company in favour of the Bank on 8.12.2014. The said borrowers of both these accounts availed the sanctioned limit facilities from the bank but they did not maintain their accounts as per terms of the security loan documents and both the accounts became NPA. The bank in order to recover its amount due and outstanding in these loan accounts towards borrowers, started the proceedings by way of sale of the house of Smt. Kaushalya Devi and in order to save her house, she requested the bank to settle and pay the amount of bank in both the accounts by way of OTS. As per first OTS proposal approved by bank, Smt. Kaushalya Devi was required to deposit Rs. 50 Lacs upto 30.9.2017 but she only deposited Rs. 5 Lacs. Upon this, a request was made by said Smt. Kaushalya Devi to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 45.80 Lacs upto 12.12.2017 but she failed to deposit the said amount and again fresh second OTS proposal was prepared by the OP as per the contents of para No. 5 of written statement of OP.  The said proposal for Compromise Settlement is (Ex. R-7).

9.       We have minutely perused the said Compromise Settlement/letter dated 24.1.2018 (Ex. R-7) wherein the approval for compromise for Rs. 51.10 Lacs is mentioned. It is also mentioned in the said OTS (Ex. R-7) that Rs. 5 Lacs were received in cash and Rs. 46.10 lacks were received through bankers’ cheque which presented for clearing. In the said Compromise Settlement dated 24.1.2018, it was recommended that:

          “In view of the facts as mentioned above, we may mention here that       the compromise proposal in question was discussed with Recovery    Department , Zonal Office, Chandigarh and in principal approval was granted over telephone for Rs. 50.00 lac payable by 30.9.2017.       The token money of Rs. 5.00 lac was paid earlier which was kept       separately in No Lien account. Of late, we have received the balance          compromise amount with interest in the account today i.e. on           24.1.2018. Hence, we recommend for approval of the same, write of      Rs. 16.76 lac and release of security in the account”.

                   On perusal of contents mentioned above in the recommendations of said Compromise Settlement/letter dated 24.1.2018, it stands clear that there is nothing mentioned therein regarding adjustment of amount of Rs. 1,18,358.20 ps credited in the account of complainant on 5.1.2018.  Moreover, as per contents of written statement, the OP has clearly admitted in para No. 5 of the written statement that on 5.1.2018, the policy purchased by the complainant was matured and an amount of Rs. 1,18,358.20 was transferred in the loan account of complainant but on that day, no OTS proposal was subsisting. In their written statement, on one hand, the OP further mentioned that on 5.1.2018 no OTS proposal was subsisting and the OP further mentioned that the amount of Rs. 1,18,358.20 ps was credited in the account of complainant as recovery amount of the OP on 5.1.2018 and was adjusted against the amount of OP outstanding against complainant in his loan account but on the other side, it is mentioned by the OP in their written statement that “again OTS proposal was prepared for Rs 51,80,300/- - Rs. 5,00,000/-equal to Rs. 46,80,300/-and this proposal amount had not included Rs. 1,18,358.20 ps which already stood credited”. Hence, there is clear ambiguity in the version of OP mentioned in the written statement and the same is not acceptable being not justified.  

10               So, in view of aforesaid discussions, findings and observations, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs who retain and did not pay the amount of Rs. 1,18,358.20 ps of complainant without any cause and genuine reason and therefore, the complainant becomes entitled for the aforementioned amount of Rs. 1,18,358.20 ps from the OP (which the OP had not paid to the complainant on account of maturity amount of his insurance policy purchased by the complainant on 4.1.2014 through the OP).  

11.          Therefore, we hereby direct the OPs to pay the aforementioned amount of Rs. 1,18,358.20 ps  to the complainant on account of maturity amount of insurance policy, along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date 5.1.2018, (when the said policy got matured) till realization of final payment to the complainant. 

12          The OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/-(Rs. Five Thousand Only) on account of mental agony, harassment etc. and Rs. 5000/-(Rs. Five Thousand Only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.

13.       The present complaint stands allowed in the manner as indicated above.

14.           The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order.

15.          Certified copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs.

16.           File be consigned after due compliance.

 

Announced.

Dated: - 15.11.2023