Haryana

Karnal

CC/125/2021

Kapoor Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Gandhi

06 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                     Complaint No.125 of 2021

                                                     Date of instt. 26.02.2021

                                                     Date of decision 06.09.2022

 

Kapoor Singh son of Ranjeet Singh, Ward no.10, Dabar Colony, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal.

 

      …….Complainant 

                                        Versus

 

Canara Bank, Branch Taraori, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal through its Branch Manager.

    …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

               

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

 

 Present: Shri Gandhi, counsel for the complainant.

                Opposite party exparte.

 

                (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:  

                 

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant and his father are agriculturists by profession and they are the consumer of OP bank. In the month of July, 2020 the complainant was in need of money and thus he approached the OP for agricultural loan/cash credit limit. The OP bank official indulged the complainant in various formalities, which had been completed by the complainant and ultimately on 14.08.2020, he mortgaged his agricultural land measuring 17K-7M comprised in Khewat no.111,553,677,731,743 and 744 situated in village Taraori, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal as per Jamabandi for the year 2015-2016 in favour of the bank, vide report no.532 dated 14.08.2020 for Rs.3.00 lakhs and said mortgage entry has  been incorporated in the revenue record. Despite completion of all the requisite formalities and further despite mortgaging the land in favour of the bank, the Branch Manager did not disburse the loan amount and he had been postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. In fact the Branch Manager had been raising frivolous objections such as (i) property is not being identified (ii) the land is situated at two different places (iii) bring a valuation Report (iv) Get the land partition and to submit a site plan. The Branch Manager also asked the complainant to approach a Commission Agent (Dalal) for fulfilling these formalities. The complainant requested the Manager and he is ready and willing to fulfill the remaining formalities and there is no need of any Commission Agent, then the Branch Manager demanded illegal gratification at the rate of 10% of the total sanction loan. However, the complainant refused to do so. The Branch Manager on several occasion misbehaved with the complainant which resulted in harassment and humiliation at the hands of Branch Manager.  Due to this act and conduct of the OP, the complainant under compelling circumstances raised the loan from the market at a higher rate of interest. Then complainant requested the OP for redeeming his land enabling the complainant to raise the loan from other bank, but Branch Manager had been delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant had spent an amount of Rs.10,000/- on completion of bank formalities such as obtaining the revenue record, preparation of Legal Search Report, mortgaging the land in favour of the bank and as such the complainant had suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complainant seeking direction to the OP to redeem the land mortgage vide entry no.532 dated 14.08.2020 for Rs.3.00 lakhs, to pay Rs.10,000/- on account of financial loss, to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation towards mental pain and harassment and to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OP did not appear and proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 19.04.2022 of the Commission.

3.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of Jamabandi for the year 2015-2016 Ex.C1, postal receipt dated 05.10.2021 Ex.C2, track consignment Ex.C3, postal receipt dated 15.02.2022 Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 26.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant, reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that in the month of July, 2020 the complainant approached the OP for obtaining agricultural loan. Complainant completed all the formalities as required by the OP for disbursing the loan. Despite completion of all the requisite formalities and further despite mortgaging the land in favour of the bank, the Branch Manager did not disburse the loan amount. The complainant requested the Manager and he is ready and willing to fulfill the remaining formalities but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Due to this act and conduct of the OP, the complainant under compelling circumstances raised the loan from the market at a higher rate of interest. Then complainant requested the OP for redeeming his land enabling the complainant to raise the loan from other bank, but Branch Manager had been delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant had spent an amount of Rs.10,000/- on completion of bank formalities and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

6.             To prove his case complainant placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of Jamabandi for the year 2015-2016 Ex.C1, postal receipt dated 05.10.2021 Ex.C2, track consignment Ex.C3, postal receipt dated 15.02.2022 Ex.C4

7.             On the other hand, to rebut the version of the complainant, OP did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Therefore, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.  It is evident from the Jamabandi Ex.C1 for the year 2015-2016, the complainant is owner of the land mentioned in the para no.3 of the complaint. It is also evident from the said Jamabandi entry with regard to mortgage has been incorporated. After incorporating the entry in the revenue record of the complainant neither OP has disbursed the sanctioned loan amount nor redeemed the mortgage entry from the revenue record in the land of the complainant. Hence, in view of the above, act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service.

8.             In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to redeem the land of the complainant from mortgage, in case of non-availability of loan facility by the complainant. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order till its realization. OP is at liberty to recover the said amount from the erring official/officer. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:06.09.2022

President,

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                       (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                                Member                 Member