Punjab

StateCommission

FA/50/2014

Kulwant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Rajan Singh Dadwal

03 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.50 of 2014

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 15.01.2014                  

                                                          Date of Decision :  03.08.2015

 

Kulwant Singh son of Harbhajan Singh, resident of Village Dhangrali, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  …..Appellant/Complainant

         

                                      Versus

 

Canara Bank Branch Ward No.7, Chandigarh Road, Kurali , Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar through its Manager.

 

                                                          … Respondent/Opposite Party

 

 

First Appeal against order dated 05.12.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Mohali

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant              :         Sh.R.S Dadwal, Advocate  

          For the respondent :         Sh. Munish Chaudhary, Advocate

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondent of this appeal (the opposite party in the complaint), challenging order dated 05.12.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mohali, dismissing the complaint of the complainant and awarding the cost of Rs.10,000/- to OP for frivolous institution of the complaint. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant now appellant in this appeal.

2.      The complainant Kulwant Singh has filed  the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that he has been owner in possession of one acre agriculture land and has been cultivating of 10 acre land by taking the same on rent from the other persons. The complainant wanted to develop his agriculture work and approached OP for loan in February 2013. The complainant applied for the agriculture loan from OP to earn his livelihood. The OP charged Rs.25,000/- , as process fee and other charges from the complainant. The OP sanctioned the agriculture loan to the complainant after proper verification by directing the complainant to execute the mortgage deed in favour of OP. The OP assured the complainant that the loan amount would be disbursed to him within two days after sanctioning of the mutation of mortgage in favour of OP. On 14.5.2013, the complainant executed the mortgage deed in favour of OP and mutation was sanctioned in favour of OP on 15.5.2013. The OP sat over the matter and did not release the amount to the complainant. The complainant has alleged that act of OP in not releasing the loan amount amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. The complainant has, thus, filed the present complaint and prayed for compensation of Rs.1 lac for mental harassment and Rs.10,000/-, as cost of litigation.  

3.      Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply raising preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands. The present complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The complainant has no locus stand or cause of action to file the present complaint. Intricate question of facts and law are involved in the present case, which cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings by Consumer Forum and hence matter cannot be adjudicated in this case. The complainant has concealed the material facts from the OP. The jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to entertain the complaint was questioned by OP. It was further pleaded that complainant filed the similar complaint before Banking Ombudsman Chandigarh by misstating the facts by filing wrong complaint. The complainant was litigating with his father regarding mortgage of the property and complainant was also defaulter of Morinda Primary Co-op Agriculture Development Bank Limited Morinda. The complainant concealed the above material facts from the OP in this case. The complaint was also resisted by OP even on merits of the case. It was pleaded on merits in the written reply that complainant filed affidavit stating in para no.4 thereof that no litigation was pending regarding the property to be mortgaged with the OP. Statement of the complainant was found false, as he has litigation with his father Harbans Singh regarding property in dispute. The complainant alleged in para no.7 of the affidavit that he is not defaulter of any bank or financial institution, whereas the complainant was found defaulter of Morinda Primary Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank Limited Morinda and property of the complainant was auctioned to recover their dues. OP alleged that complainant has concealed the above material facts from it by submitting wrong affidavits and hence OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence, the affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW-1/1 along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10. As against it, OP tendered in evidence the affidavit of Rashmi Vasishta Manager Ex.OP-1/1 along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-8. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Mohali, dismissed the complaint of the complainant and awarded cost of Rs.10,000/- to OP for frivolous and vexatious nature of complaint by virtue of order dated 05.12.2013. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Mohali dated 05.12.2013, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.   

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case.

6.      The order of the District Forum has been impugned in this appeal by the complainant/appellant. Undisputedly, complainant applied for a loan to OP/Bank by mortgaging his property. The land was sanctioned to him by OP and the mutation was sanctioned on the basis of the mortgage deed of his land. The complainant mortgaged his land in favour of OP on 14.5.2013 and mutation was sanctioned on 15.5.2013 on the basis of documents, vide Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3. The complainant deposited Rs.25,000/-, as processing fee for the loan. The order of the District Forum has been termed, as illegal and deficient in service. It was further contended that complainant has not concealed any material fact, while swearing affidavit Ex.OP-1 on the record. The property of the complainant was put to mortgage in this case and it  was not subject matter of any civil suit. On the other hand, submission of counsel for OP now respondent in the appeal is that complainant gave false information to OP just  to manipulate the loan from OP. Counsel for the respondent in the appeal contended that the complainant stated in his affidavit that there was no litigation of his property, whereas complainant had litigation with his father about the property. The counsel for the respondent in the appeal further contended that complainant filed affidavit that he has not taken any loan from any financial institution or bank. The complainant was defaulter of Primary Cooperative Agriculture Development Bank Limited Morinda and his land was auctioned. We have examined the affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW-1/1 and Ex.CW-1/2 on the record. Mortgage deed Ex.C-2 executed by the complainant for Rs.8 lac amount of 1/4th share out of 7 kanal 14 marla situated at Dangrali , Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar. Ex.C-3 is copy of Jamabandi for the year  and mutation has been sanctioned on the basis of this mortgage deed. The above documents have been placed by the complainant on record. Remaining documents Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-10 have also been duly considered by us. We have also examined the affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Rashmi Vasishta Manager of Canara Bank Kurali District SAS Nagar. It is stated in this affidavit that complainant gave false affidavit to the effect that he has not availed any loan from any bank or from financial institution in connection with the above property. The affidavit of complainant Kulwant Singh is Ex.OP-1 on the record and he specifically stated on oath in para no.4 of the affidavit, that property is not subject matter of any civil suit. The complainant stated in para no.7 of the affidavit that he has not availed any loan facility from any person, bank or financial institution in connection with the above property. The letter addressed by Harbhajan Singh to Deputy Commissioner Ropar is Ex.OP-2. Ex.R-2 is letter addressed from Additional Deputy Commissioner to Sub Divisional Magistrate Chamkaur Sahib for taking action under Senior Citizen Act 2007 against complainant at the instance of his father. Auction Notice by Morinda Primary Co-op Agriculture Development Bank Limited Morinda  is Ex.OP-3. We find that this auction notice of complainant pertains to Khasra No.14, 14/8-0, 18/8-0, 2/7-8, 8//, 22/7-8 total 30 kanal 18 marla out of the same 4 kanal 10 marla. We find that the property mortgaged by the complainant with OP in this case, as contained in mortgaged deed Ex.C-2, is also same property to which the auction notice Ex.OP-3 belonged. The complainant gave false affidavit to OP to procure loan only, despite the fact that the Morinda Primary Co-op Agriculture Development Bank Limited Morinda had auctioned the land of the complainant, which complainant again maneuvered to mortgage  with OP. Ex.OP-7 is the letter addressed by father of the complainant to D.C Ropar for taking action against the complainant under Senior Citizen Act 2007. Applicant Harbhajan Singh stated in it that various cases are pending in the Court with his son Kulwant Singh regarding the property.

7.      In view of our above-referred discussions on the record, we find that complainant tried to be overreach the OP by submitting wrong affidavit swearing that he has not taken or availed of any loan facility from bank or financial institution of property to be mortgaged with OP. The submission of the complainant contained in affidavit stands belied ex-facie by the auction notice Ex.OP-3 on the record. There is also litigation between complainant and his father, as gathered by us, but complainant wrongly stated to OP in the affidavit to the contrary. Consequently, act of OP in not sanctioning the loan to complainant, who is defaulter of Morinda Co-operative Agriculture Bank Morinda is justified. We are unable to find any deficiency in service in this case on the part of OP. The complainant gave wrong affidavit, for that he has been imposed the cost of Rs.10,000/- by the District Forum for filing false complaint, as he tried to wangle the loan amount from OP by suppressing the material facts.

8.      As a result of our above discussion, we have not come across any illegality in the order of the District Forum calling for any interference therein. The order of the District Forum Mohali dated 05.12.2013 is, thus, affirmed in this appeal. Finding no merits in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.

9.      The appellant has deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the respondent/opposite party by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after  45 days from receipt of copy of this order.

10.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 24.07.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

11.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                          (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                             MEMBER

 

August  3,   2015.                                                          

(ravi)