Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.03.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay the Maturity amount of N.S.C. i.e. Rs. 90,000/- which was not refunded to the complainant.
- To pay Rs. 100/- ( Rs. One Hundred only ) per day from 24.11.2009 till the date of final payment as compensation.
- To pay Rs. 2,000/- ( Rs. Two Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
Complainant has asserted that he applied for Car Loan before P.N.B., Danapur Branch ( Opposite party no. 1 ) in year 2007 and accordingly the loan was furnished after agreement on 24.07.2007. the aforesaid loan agreement was in the name of complainant’s wife namely Poonam Devi who as a guarantor has deposited four furnished NSC to the value of Rs. 10,000/- each and one certificate to the value of Rs. 5,000/-. Thus the complainant has deposited NSC amounting to Rs. 45,000/- which is crystal clear from loan application which has been annexed as annexure – 1.
The further case of the complainant is that after payment of loan amount, a prayer was made to opposite party Bank to refund the aforesaid NSC which were deposited by way of collateral security by the complainant.
It is the case of the complainant that despite several request and applications which have been annexed as annexure – 1 to 15 to different authorities of the Bank, his NSC certificates has not been returned up till now.
On behalf of opposite parties a written statement has been filed in which it is stated that “ the claim of the complainant by asserting that the “Charge Taking Report” of the then incumbent Manager does not contain the documents ( NSC) in question. Moreover, the document register, a vital register of a bank, is also not mentioning this document (NSC). Thus, there must be no iota of doubt that the complainant ever submitted NSC to the opposite party nor was same demanded by the opposite party ”. In short the opposite party has denied that the complainant has submitted any NSC by way of collateral security. In Para – 8 of written statement the opposite party has made following assertion, “that under such circumstances this complaint is nothing more than a vexatious and frivolous petition and is fit to be dismissed with litigation costs and compensation for inconvenience.”
It has been also asserted by the opposite parties that the complainant has not furnished any detail is support of his claim or such as number of the NSC etc.
On behalf of complainant a supplementary affidavit has been filed asserting the fact that he has deposited the NSC before the bank. In Para – 4 of the aforesaid supplementary affidavit it has been asserted that instead of returning the aforesaid NSC the bank has taken plea that no such security was deposited by the complainant.
The fact asserted by the parties have been briefly narrated in the forgoing paragraphs. It is the case of the complainant that at the time of sanctioning loan vide annexure – 1 he has filed application for loan. From perusal of Para – 13 and 14 of the same i.e. annexure – 1. It is crystal clear that the NSC worth of Rs. 45,000/- was taken by way of collateral security.
From perusal of annexure – 11 of complaint petition it is crystal clear that in the application addressed to Officer of P.N.B. the complainant has stated that the photocopy of the aforesaid document has been lost and as such the authority may enquire whether the aforesaid NSC had been issued or not in the name of the complainant and his wife.
The wife of the complainant has also requested the General Manager Customer care P.N.B. vide annexure – 17 in which she has narrated her whole story but the consistent stand taken by the bank is that no any NSC etc. was deposited in the bank by way of collateral security.
This fact has not been explained by the bank that in what circumstances in application for loan, the deposit of collateral security i.e. NSC of Rs. 45,000/- finds place in serial 12 and 13 of annexure – 1.
Even the existence of annexure – 1 has not been denied by the bank but in Para – 2 of written statement it has simply been stated by the bank that “the said annexure is silent whether the complainant has deposited it or the opposite party bank had received it”.
It is surprising that from bare perusal of annexure – 1 with naked eye it is crystal clear that in Para – 13 and 14 there is mention of collateral security or NSC worth of Rs. 45,000/-. Had the complainant not deposited the aforesaid NSC by way of hypothecation then there would have no mention of NSC in Para – 13 and 14 of annexure – 1. Hence, we are not persuaded with the submission of learned counsel of opposite parties that this Forum can not decide disputed facts because the opposite parties have denied to have received NSC but there is no any answer to this submission of learned counsel of the complainant that if complainant had not deposited the NSC’s then how these facts are mentioned in serial 13 and 14 of annexure – 1. The existence of annexure - 1 has not been denied by the bank.
In view of the aforesaid fact and circumstances we find and hold that by not returning the aforesaid NSC of the complainant despite repayment of loan amount the opposite party Bank has committed deficiency.
Hence we direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to return the aforesaid NSC worth of Rs. 45,000/- within the period of three months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order.
We further made it clear that if the aforesaid NSC are not traceable in the bank then the maturity amount of Rs. 90,000/- must be paid to the complainant within the aforesaid period failing which the opposite parties will have to pay an interest @ 12% on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 90,000/- till its final payment is made.
However it will open to bank to ascertain from the concerned post office whether any NSC were issued in the name of complainant or his wife or whether the said certificates are encahsed by the complainant or his wife from the post office or not.
If the complainant is found stating lie on affidavit then the bank authority may take action against the complainant according to law and our aforesaid direction will not operate but we make it clear that all the exercise ( enquiries etc. ) must be done by the bank authorities within the period of three months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order.
The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs as the complainant is pursuing this matter for five years in the result.
Accordingly, this complaint stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Member President
