Haryana

Karnal

CC/62/2018

Naresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Central Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Gurjeet Chauhan

22 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No.62 of 2018

                                                         Date of instt. 12.03.2018

                                                         Date of decision:22.07.2019

 

Naresh Kumar son of Shri Ram Sanjivan resident of house no.98, Gali no.4, Rajivpuram Phoosgarh Road, Karnal.

…….Complainant 

                                        Versus

 

Central Bank of India Karnal Branch Code 00381 near Bus Stand,  Karnal.

 

…..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present   Shri Surjit Chauhan Advocate for complainant.

                  Shri V.S. Malik Advocate for opposite party.

                  

                  

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that on 19.06.2015 the complainant applied for a HUDA plot in sector 32-33 Karnal through OP Bank. Complainant had deposited three months advance payment and one blank cheque no.16703 of Bank of India Branch Mugal Canal Karnal in the bank of OP. The complainant had nothing to know about the draw of the HUDA plot. The said cheque had been cleared on 23.02.2016 for the amount of Rs.3800/-. After seven months complainant had purchased one LCD and one mobile after taking the loan from Bajaj Finance and he had cleared the entire loan amount. Thereafter, complainant again purchased one LED from Bajaj Finance and after 4-5 months one fridge has also financed. Complainant deposited the installments regularly. Complainant again approached the Bajaj finance for finance of one mobile set. The loan for purchase the mobile was denied by the Bajaj Finance due to bad CIBIL.

2.              On 8.9.2014 at the time of completion of the passbook, it came to the notice of the complainant that Rs.3000/- was deducted by OP in his account. On enquiry concern employee of OP told the complainant that he became a defaulter and in this regard bank sent a notice to complainant. On verification of bank statement only Rs.1681/- was to be due but OP had deducted Rs.3800/- from the account of the complainant. The complainant approached the OP and enquired about the matter, on this employee of the OP said the complainant you are defaulter and in this regard bank has sent notice to the complainant but complainant has neither received any notice nor received any telephonic call from the OP in this regard. When complainant told to OP that the cheque of Rs.3800/- has been cleared from the branch of OP then OP refused to admit the same. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version stating therein that on 19.06.2015 the complainant had applied for a plot in HUDA sector 32-33 Karnal. As per agreement the OP has deducted the interest amount from the account of the complainant and in this regard OP informed the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 18.12.2018.

4.             OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Bhaskar Kumar Jayaswal Ex.RW1/A and closed the evidence on 18.06.2019.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant is that on 19.06.2015 the complainant applied for a HUDA plot in sector 32-33 Karnal through OP Bank. Complainant had deposited three months advance payment and one blank cheque no.16703 of Bank of India Branch Mugal Canal Karnal in the bank of OP. The said cheque had been cleared on 23.02.2016 for the amount of Rs.3800/-. Complainant approached the Bajaj finance for finance of one mobile set. The loan for purchase the mobile was denied by the Bajaj Finance due to bad CIBIL. On 8.9.2014 at the time of completion of the passbook, complainant noticed that Rs.3000/- was deducted by OP in his account. On enquiry concern employee of OP told the complainant that he became a defaulter and in this regard bank sent a notice to complainant. On verification of bank statement only Rs.1681/- was to be due but OP had deducted Rs.3800/- from the account of the complainant. The complainant approached the OP and enquired about the matter, on this employee of the OP said the complainant you are defaulter and in this regard bank has sent notice to the complainant but complainant has neither received any notice nor received any telephonic call from the OP in this regard.

7.             On 19.06.2015 the complainant had applied for a plot in HUDA sector 32-33 Karnal. As per agreement the OP has deducted the interest amount from the account of the complainant and in this regard OP informed the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP.

8.             Admittedly, the complainant had applied for a HUDA plot in sector 32-33 on 19.06.2015 through OP Bank. It is also admitted one blank cheque bearing no.16703 was given to OP at that time. The said cheque had been cleared on 23.02.2016 for the amount of Rs.3800/-. The loan for purchasing the mobile was denied by Bajaj Finance due to the bad CIBIL. On 8.9.2014 at the time of completion of passbook issued by OP, it came in the notice of the complainant that Rs.3000/- was deducted by OP in his account. On enquiry concern employee of OP told the complainant that he became a defaulter and in this regard bank sent a notice. On verification of bank statement only 1681 was to be due but OP had deducted Rs.3000/- from the account of OP.

9.             OP had refunded Rs.2116/- to the complainant. It has been proved that OP had wrongly deducted Rs.6800/-(Rs.3800/-+Rs.3000/-) from the account of complainant and thereafter on the complaint of the complainant Rs.2116/- was refunded to the complainant. As per version of OP that they sent the notice to the complainant regarding defaulting but in this regard no document/copy of notice placed on record by the OP. Moreover, OP failed to supply the loan detail of the complainant. So, we are of the firm views that act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service.

10.            Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.4684/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deduction till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. OP is also directed to remove bad entry from the CIBIL record of the complainant. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:22.07.2019

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member