| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.785 of 23-12-2014 Decided on 01-08-2016 Gurpal Singh aged about 38 years S/o Rajinder Singh S/o Munshi Singh R/o Village Daulatpura @ Gausal, Tehsil and District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.Central Bank of India, Bhucho Mandi, Tehsil and District Bathinda, through its Branch Manager Sh.Amar Singh Meena. 2.Central Bank of India having its Head Office, Chandermukhi Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021, through its Chairman/Managing Director. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For complainant: Sh.H.S Dhanoa, Advocate. For opposite parties: Sh.Naveen Goyal, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Gurpal Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Central Bank of India and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he has availed a loan facility of Rs.2,50,000/- from opposite party No.1 on 30.7.2012 in his account bearing No.CKCC-3193747062. On 13.11.2014, he deposited a sum of Rs.2,59,000/- and repaid the whole amount alongwith interest. There is nothing due against him. As such, opposite parties are bound to issue him 'No Due Certificate' because there is nothing due against his loan account. It is alleged that after deposit of the amount, the complainant requested opposite party No.1 to issue 'No Due Certificate/No Objection Certificate' so that he may be able to further avail the financial facilities from the said bank or any other bank or he may not be termed as defaulter, but opposite parties did not issue him 'NOC'. They are making the false excuses and delaying the issuance of 'NOC'. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and has also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for harassment etc. in addition to directions to opposite parties to issue him 'No Due Certificate'. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel, but they failed to file written version within the statutory period. As such, the matter was posted for evidence of the complainant. Parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 16.4.2015, (Ex.C1); photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C2); postal receipt, (Ex.C3) and thereafter he failed to produce remaining evidence despite repeated adjournments. As such, his evidence was closed by order on 14.7.2015. In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties have tendered into evidence photocopy of account statement, (Ex.OP1/1); affidavit of Amar Singh Meena dated 9.10.2015; (Ex.OP1/2); photocopies of jamabandies, (Ex.OP1/3 and Ex.OP1/4); photocopy of letter, (Ex.OP1/5); photocopy of sanction, (Ex.OP1/6); photocopy of sanction of mutation, (Ex.OP1/7); photocopy of application form, (Ex.OP1/8); photocopy of memorandum, (Ex.OP1/9); photocopy of mortgage deed, (Ex.OP1/10) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that the complainant has alleged that he availed loan facility of Rs.2,50,000/- from opposite parties on 30.7.2012 and deposited all the due amount on 13.11.2014. There was nothing due against the complainant after 13.11.2014. Opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Amar Singh Meena, (Ex.OP1/2). He was manager of bank branch. In his affidavit, this witness has not disputed regarding availing of loan by the complainant, but he has nowhere alleged any amount due towards the complainant. Opposite parties were also having account statement of the complainant, but they have not produced the same to show any amount due towards him. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that opposite parties failed to file written version. They were permitted only to produce evidence and advance arguments. Opposite parties were not to set up new case, which is set up by Amar Singh Meena in his affidavit, (Ex.OP1/2). Even from the affidavit, (Ex.OP1/2) also, it cannot be concluded that any amount is due towards the complainant. The averment of opposite parties is that Rajinder Singh, father of the complainant has availed loan of Rs.2,49,303/- secured by mortgage of his land and was debtor of opposite parties. The complainant represented that his father had suffered paralysis attack and become physically crippled and incapacitated to move around. The complainant also represented that his father was to partition his mortgaged land in favour of complainant and his brother Simratpal Singh. Inadvertently, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was credited in the account of Rajinder Singh, father of the complainant. The complainant and his father were fully aware that this amount did not belong to them, but the complainant has withdrawn this amount by using Kissan Credit Card. This averment is beyond the scope of this complaint. Even otherwise, the complainant cannot be held concerned with the account of his father and cannot be held liable for amount, if any, transferred in the account of his father and when nothing is due towards the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get 'No Due Certificate'. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that of-course, written version of opposite parties is not accepted, but they were permitted to lead evidence to rebut the evidence of complainant and advance arguments. The complainant is not a 'consumer' as he has availed agriculture loan, which is patently for the commercial purpose. Therefore, he is not a 'consumer' and complaint is liable to be dismissed for this reason. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and his claim is with malafide intention. Opposite parties have placed on record copy of account statement of Rajinder Singh, father of complainant. This document clinches the entire controversy. This document proves that a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was credited to the account of Rajinder Singh on 28.6.2013, but the complainant has withdrawn this amount by using ATM card. This amount was not actually transferable to the account of Rajinder Singh as he has closed the account before transfer of the amount. Inadvertently, the account remained operative in the system and a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was automatically transferred in the account of Rajinder Singh as agriculture loan. The complainant was fully aware that his father Rajinder Singh was not entitled to this amount, but despite that he has withdrawn this amount. The loan of Rajinder Singh was secured by way of mortgage of his land. Therefore, the complainant has claimed right to land. He is not entitled to 'No Due Certificate' unless and until the account amount is due towards Rajinder Singh, father of complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. It is well settled that the matter is to be decided on the basis of pleadings of parties. The case of the complainant is very simple. He has pleaded that he has availed the loan from opposite parties and repaid the entire amount with interest on 20.11.2014 and nothing is due against his account No.CKCC3193747062. Opposite parties could not file written version within the stipulated period. As such, the matter was posted for evidence of complainant. Of-course, opposite parties were permitted to rebut the evidence led by the complainant and to address arguments. Therefore, the permission was limited only to rebut the evidence of complainant and not to put entirely different case. It is not the case of opposite parties that any amount is due against the complainant in his account. The version of opposite parties is that Rajinder Singh, father of complainant was having separate account and complainant represented that his father had suffered paralysis attack and become physically crippled and incapacitated to move around and his father was to partition his mortgaged land in favour of complainant and his brother Simratpal Singh. Opposite parties believed this representation under good faith and loan of Rajinder Singh was cleared. It is also the case of opposite parties that a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was transferred in the account of Rajinder Singh. The complainant and his father were aware that this amount is not belonging to them, but the complainant has withdrawn this amount fraudulently. Therefore, this version of opposite parties is entirely different version, which is beyond the scope of this case. Even otherwise, opposite parties were having remedy, if any, only against Rajinder Singh. The amount was transferred in the account of Rajinder Singh and not complainant. As nothing is due against the complainant in his loan account, therefore, he is entitled to get 'No Due Certificate' from the opposite parties. Withhelding of 'No Due Certificate' amounts to deficiency in service. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to issue 'No Due Certificate' to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 01-08-2016 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
