Punjab

Patiala

CC/20/234

Lal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager Punjab Gramin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh RIS Rajhail

03 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.

:

CC/ 234/2020    

Date of Institution

:

15.10.2020

Date of Decision

:

3.3.2023

 

 

Lal Singh son of Dev Singh, son of Bachan Singh, resident of village Pahlia Khurd, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala.

 

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

 

  1. Branch Manager, Punjab Gramin Bank, Branch Bugga Kalan, Tehsil Amloh.

 

  1. Punjab Gramin Bank, through its Branch Manager, Branch Bugga Kalan, Tehsil Amloh.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi, Member        

 

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.R.I.S.Majhail, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh.Manjit Singh Sidhu, counsel for OPs.                     

 

                                     

 ORDER                                          

  1. The instant complaint is filed by Lal Singh S/o Dev Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
  2. The averments  put forth by the complainant are as follows:

The complainant applied for credit facility/loan from OPs. After considering the loan application and compliance of all legal and procedural formalities and technicalities by complainant, OPs sanctioned loan for an amount of Rs.4,40,000/-on 24.7.2020 at the prevailing rate of interest i.e. 9.75% per annum with MCLR. Thereafter OPs got marked lien of said loan in jamabandi for the year 2018-19 vide report No.411 dated 24.7.2020. Despite completion of all the formalities, OPs did not credit loan amount into the loan account of complainant.

It is averred that after credit limit was sanctioned by the OPs, complainant took 25 bighas of agricultural land on lease situated at village Pallia Khurd at the rate of Rs.11000/- per bigha but when OPs failed to release the above said amount, complainant was left with no other alternative except to take required amount at high rate of interest from private financer to pay the lease money. Complainant sent legal notice dated 1.9.2020 to the OPs through registered post but they failed to pay any heed to his request. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

  1. Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OPs who appeared through counsel and filed written statement having raised various preliminary objections.

On merits, it is admitted that complainant applied for credit facility/loan from OPs and after completion of all formalities sanctioned loan for an amount of Rs.4,40,000/- on 24.7.2020 at the prevailing rate of interest (@9.75% per annum) with MCLR. It is also admitted that lien of loan was got marked in the copy of jamabandi by the complainant on 24.7.2020, as it has been shown in the jamabandi dated 31.7.2020 produced by the complainant.

It is alleged that before completion of all formalities of the bank, by the complainant, brother of the complainant namely Amritpal Singh gave an application on 30.7.2020 to the Branch Manager not to disburse the loan amount to the complainant on the ground that he has filed an application before the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nabha because of dispute qua the property of their mother and handed over copy of appeal and resolution dated 1.5.2020 of Gram Panchayat Palia Khurd. On 31.7.2020 complainant obtained the fard qua mutation No.411 dated 24.7.2020 in favour of the bank and produced the same before the then Branch Manager, upon which Branch Manager apprised him the circumstances told by his brother not to disburse the loan amount to the complainant. Brother of the complainant further gave copy of appeal pending in the court of Collector Ist Grade, Nabha and resolution dated 1.5.2020 and copy of application given by him to the Tehsildar, Nabha not to register the mortgage deed etc..Thereafter, OPs wrote a letter to their legal advisor to clear the matter by sending all the documents to him on 29.8.2011 who also opinednot to disburse the amount to the complainant.

Reply to the legal notice sent by the complainant was also given on 9.9.2020.Complainant was also requested to withdraw his false notice. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. After denying all other averments, OPs prayed for dismissal of complaint.

  1. In evidence, ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents, Ex.C1 copy of jamabandi, Ex.C2 copy of lease deed, Ex.C3 copy of legal notice, Ex.C4 copy of postal receipts, Ex.C5 copy of reply to notice, Ex.C6 copy of will, Ex.C7 copy of letter of Gramin Bank and close the evidence.
  2. In rebuttal, ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OP1 affidavit of Amardeep Singh Tiwana, Manager of OPs alonwith documents, Ex.OP2 to OP11 and closed the evidence.
  3. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
  4. From the perusal of record, it is evident that complainant had applied for credit facility to the tune of Rs.4,40,000/- with the OPs. This fact has been admitted by the OPs in their letter, Ex.OP7, wherein it has been stated that lien has been created against the said loan against the jamabandi of land vide mutation No.411 dated 24.7.2020 in favour of OPs. The complainant has alleged that in pursuance of sanction accorded by the OPs, he had taken additional land of 25 bighas on lease @ Rs.11000/- per bigha. However, due to non disbursement of loan he had to borrow money from a private financer at higher rate of interest. As such, complainant had alleged unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as the credit facility was not created even after the sanctioning of the same by the OPs.
  5. The OPs in their reply have alleged that initially after the submission of the documents by the complainant credit facility was sanctioned. However, before the time of disbursal a complaint was received from the brother of the complainant,Ex.C2 wherein it has been alleged that the land for which lien has been created by the OPs vide report No.411 dated 24.7.2020 is not free from encumbrance and  a court case for the same is pending. The matter was got investigated by the OPs from their Advocate Gurjinder Singh Dhaliwal, who vide report dated 8.9.2020,Ex.D-7 has stated that the complainant has concealed the facts regarding the appeal in mutation No.1171 which is pending in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nabha and has further advised the OPs that their interest is not safe for further proceedings i.e. disbursing credit facility to Lal Singh i.e. compllainant.As such in view of the said report credit facility was then declined by the OPs.
  6. From the above discussion, it transpires that court case was pending against the said agricultural land and same is under dispute. Moreover, the complainant in his affidavit submitted to the OPs at the time of sanction of credit facility has stated that the land is free from all kinds of encumbrance charges, lien etc for the last 13 years and the same is not the subject matter of any litigation pending in a court of law. He has further stated that ‘I have become the owner in possession of the land measuring 6 bighas 9 Biswas situated at village Pahlia Khurd Tehsil Nabha as per jamabandi for the year 2013-14 vide mutation No.1171 but khasra girdawari of this land has not been entered /corrected in my name and as and when it is created in my name in the revenue record, the same shall be produced by me’. As such complainant has produced a wrong affidavit at the time of application and sanction of loan. Complainant has also given declaration to the extent that the land/property deemed to be mortgaged has not been acquired through illegal means and nothing has been concealed. Thus the OPs were within their right to refuse the credit facility to the complainant as he had concealed material information. Ld. counsel for the OPs has relied upon the judgment, in the case of Vasant B.Sonawane Vs. Ratna Builders and Anr. (2000)2 CPC 689.However, this judgment does not extend any help to the OPs as it pertains to the delayed possession of the flat wherein the installments were paid by the complainant in time. He has also relied upon the judgment Shri K. Jayaram And Others Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others (2022) 1 CivCC 209(SC), wherein it has been held that the parties had to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subject-matter of dispute. Parties are not entitled extra ordinary suitable discretionary relief in case of concealment of facts.
  7. Ld. counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgment ICICI Bank Ltd. through its Regional Manager having its office at;Padma Building (G.F.) Nehru Place, New Delhi Vs. Mrinal Kanti Paul 2019(2) C.P.J. 295(NC), wherein loan was sanctioned by the respondents was not disbursed and hypothecation of the vehicle  secured as security was not got cancelled by the respondents. As such respondents were held liable for deficiency of service as hypothecation was not cancelled.
  8. After hearing ld. counsel for the parties and carefully, gone through the record of the case, we find that OPs were well within their right to refuse the credit facility to the complainant. However, it is found that lien was created against the land in question vide report 411 dated 24.7.2020 but was not released by the OPs till 17/1/2022 as per jamabandi submitted by ld. counsel for complainant and was released during 6/2022 as is contended by complainant and  could not be rebutted by the OPs, which they should have released immediately after the refusal to grant of loan. As such, we are of the opinion that the lien created on the agricultural land was not released for a period of almost 18 months, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OPs on that score. We accordingly partly allow the complaint and deem it appropriate to give a direction to the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.15000/-as compensation inclusive of costs, to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment to him, within  a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which OPs shall pay interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of said order till realization. We order accordingly.  
  9.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
  10.  
  11.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.