DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.159 of 13.6.2007<br /> Decided on : 3.9.2007 <br /> <br /> Som Chand Katia S/o Sh. Dewan Chand Katia, R/o 4304, Kikkar Bazar, Bathinda now residing in House No. 2766, Street no. 3, Namdev Marg, Bathinda. <br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd., Khandsa Road, Near Sector 10A, Gurgaon through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.<br /> 2.The Manager, Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd., Guru Kanshi Marg, Bathinda.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh.Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Naresh Garg, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate <br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him Rs. 12,050/- alongwith interest @ 12.5% P.A illegally withdrawn from his Saving Account No. 3351; Rs. 13,500/- paid by him to the purchaser of the car as penalty amount for 27 days with interest @ 12.5% P.A from the date of payment till realisation; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and loss of physical health and Rs. 3,000/- as costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant as emanates from the complaint itself culminating into its filing may be epitomized as under :-<br /> An Accent Car bearing registration No Pb-03K/8080 was purchased by the complainant. Part of the purchase price was financed by the opposite parties. As per provisions of the relevant law, entry was made in the registration certificate of this vehicle with regard to Hire Purchase Agreement (HPA) by the office of District Transport Officer, Bathinda. After receipt of the entire loan amount, it was obligatory on the part of the opposite parties to issue No Objection Certificate and to get the entry of HPA cancelled from the registration certificate. In the month of April, 2007, he desired to sell the car in an open market. Accordingly, total outstanding amount of Rs. 1,86,546.64 was deposited by him in his loan account with the opposite parties on 9.4.2007. Opposite party No.2 was requested to issue No Objection Certificate for getting HPA entry cancelled from the registration certificate. He was visiting opposite party No. 2 for getting necessary No Objection Certificate, but he and his other officials continued postponing the matter without any rhyme and reason. Car was sold by him to one Avtar Singh S/o Surjit Singh, resident of village Maur Khurd, District Bathinda on 13.4.2007 through Broker Sh. Pawan Kumar, Proprietor, Guru Nanak Car Bazar, Bathinda. At the time of sale, purchaser had demanded No Objection Certificate issued by the opposite parties for getting HPA entry cancelled. Since, it was not available with him, Broker Sh. Pawan Kumar settled the matter that in case he would not handover No Objection Certificate from the opposite parties within ten days i.e. upto 23rd April, 2007, he would be liable to pay Rs.500/- per day as penalty to the purchaser. He (complainant) was making request to opposite party No.2 and was personally visiting him for getting No Objection Certificate, but opposite party No.2 and his officials paid no heed. He (complainant) is having Saving Account No. 3351 with the opposite parties. They (opposite parties) of their own illegally and without any intimation to him and in order to cause wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to him, withdrew Rs. 12,050/- from his this account on 16.4.2007. In this manner, they indulged in unfair trade practice. On 14.5.2007, he wrote letter to opposite party No.2 apprising him of this fact. He further requested for issuing No Objection Certificate, refunding Rs. 12,050/- alongwith interest @ 12.5% P.A and reimbursing the amount of Rs. 500/- per day which he would have to pay to the purchaser for not handing over the No Objection Certificate within the settled period till supply of the No Objection Certificate. Letter was personally handed over by him to opposite party No.2. No Objection Certificate dated 18.5.2007 issued by opposite party No.1 was handed over to him by opposite party No.2 on 20.5.2007 i.e. after 27 days of the settled date. It was handed over immediately to the Broker. He has to pay Rs.13,500/- as penalty amount for not delivering No Objection Certificate for 27 days. This has resulted due to lapses on the part of the opposite parties. He alleges that due to the adamant attitude, behaviour, wrongful act and conduct of the opposite parties, he has undergone mental tension, agony and loss to physical health. In these circumstances, his assertion is that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable as it is barred by time; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as the dispute is with regard to settlement of accounts and only remedy available is to file civil suit for rendition of accounts and that complaint has been filed on false facts. There is no specific denial about the fact that part of the purchase price of the car was financed by them. Inter-alia, their plea is that complainant has not paid the amount as per loan agreement. Still a sum of Rs. 3,505/- is due. Despite the fact that this amount is outstanding, No Objection Certificate was issued on his assurance that he would pay this amount. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Sh. Som Chand Katia tendered into evidence his own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.8), affidavit (Ex.C.2) of Sh. Pawan Kumar, copy of account statement (Ex.C.3), photocopy of letter dated 14.5.2007 (Ex.C.4), photocopy of No Objection Certificate dated 18.5.2007 (Ex.C.5), photocopy of Form No. 35 (Ex.C.6), photocopy of account statement of loan (Ex.C.7) & photocopy of account statement of Saving Account (Ex.C.9). <br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavit(Ex.R.1) of Sh. Harjit Singh, Collection Manager, photocopy of agreement (Ex.R.2) and photocopy of Demand Promissory Note (Ex.R.3). <br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted by the complainant.<br /> 7. One of the objections taken by the opposite parties is that matter in controversy relates to rendition of accounts and as such, the only remedy available to the complainant is to file suit for rendition of accounts. Accordingly, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. This argument is not tenable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Complainant is not seeking the relief of settlement of accounts from the opposite parties. He alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties on account of the fact that opposite parties caused delay in issuing No Objection Certificate to him without any sufficient cause due to which he has to pay Rs. 13,500/- as penalty to Sh. Avtar Singh, who has purchased his car and that opposite parties have withdrawn RS. 12.050/- from his Saving Account without any justification. It is not a case where complainant is claiming rendition of accounts. Amount concerning which there is controversy is specific and not unascertained. Accordingly, objection of the opposite parties is repelled. This Forum is well within its right to entertain and try this complaint.<br /> 8. Fact that part of the price of the car purchased by the complainant was financed by the opposite parties, is not in dispute. Grievances of the complainant are too fold. One is that opposite parties did not issue No Objection Certificate till 18.5.2007 despite the fact that he had paid the total outstanding amount of Rs. 1,86,546.64 on 9.4.2007. He has to pay Rs. 13,500/- for 27 days @ Rs. 500/- per day to Sh. Avtar Singh, purchaser of the car through Sh. Pawan Kumar broker. Second one is that an amount of Rs. 12,050/- was wrongly debited by the opposite parties from his Saving Account. It was illegally credited in the loan account. During the pendency of this complaint, this amount has been refunded to him on 18.7.2007 after receipt of its notice issued by this Forum.<br /> 9. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the complainant are that outstanding loan amount taken by the complainant for purchase of the car was paid by the complainant on 9.4.2007. Complainant was visiting opposite party No.2 for getting No Dues Certificate. Matter was postponed for one reason or the other. Complainant sent letter dated 14.5.2007 to the Senior Manager of the opposite party-bank, copy of which is Ex.C.4, and on its basis, No Objection Certificate was issued, copies of which are Ex.C.5 & Ex.C.6. Apart from this, opposite parties withdrew Rs. 12,050/- from the Saving Account of the complainant on 16.4.2007 without any sufficient cause and authority and this amount has been refunded on 18.7.2007 through cheque dated 9.7.2007 after receipt of the notice of this complaint. Facts and circumstances prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 10. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the opposite parties countered the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that complainant has not paid the amount as per loan agreement. Still a sum of Rs. 3,505/- is due towards him. On assurance given by him that he would pay the outstanding amount, No Objection Certificate was issued. So far as the amount of Rs. 12,050/- is concerned, the same has been refunded to the complainant. In this scenario, opposite parties are not at fault.<br /> 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. Complainant in his affidavits Ex.C.1 & Ex. C. 8 reiterates his version in the complaint. Ex.C.7 and Ex. C. 9 are respectively the copies of the statements of accounts concerning the loan and saving accounts of the complainant. A perusal of Ex.C.9 reveals that a sum of Rs. 1,86,546.64 was debited from the saving account of the complainant for transfer to his loan account. Onus to prove that amount of Rs. 3,505/- was outstanding out of the financed amount is upon the opposite parties. Learned counsel for the opposite parties drew our attention to Ex.C.7 and the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Harjit Singh, Collection Manager on this aspect of the matter. In Ex.C.7, words instalment overdue RS. 3,505/- find mention. No-doubt, presumption of truth is attached to the statement of account prepared by the officials of the bank in the discharge of their public duties under the Bankers Books Evidence Act, but the same is rebutable. Ex.C.7 and Ex.C.9 are such documents to which so much sanctity cannot be attached. Admittedly, both the accounts maintained are in the opposite parties-bank. Amount of Rs. 1,46,546.64 was debited from the saving account on 9.4.2007 and was transferred to the loan account. Opposite parties did not deem it fit to credit this amount in the loan account on the same day. Rather, it was credited on 10.4.2007 as per value date and on 13.4.2007 as per date mentioned in Ex.C.7. There is no document on the record to show that complainant authorised the opposite party-bank orally or in writing to withdraw Rs. 12,050/- from his saving account. This amount has been shown to have been withdrawn from his saving account on 16.4.2007 under head particulars with words bank induced. Learned counsel for the opposite parties could not show us the meaning of these words nor are they understandable. Withdrawal of this amount of Rs. 12,050/- has been shown on 16.4.2007 from saving account. In the loan statement of account, amount of Rs. 12,050/- has been shown to have been credited under column decreased by on 14.4.2007. Hence, what reliance can be placed on the entries in the statements of accounts. In Ex.C.7, the status of the account has been shown as closed. In case, a sum of Rs. 3,505/- is/was overdue when No Objection Certificate was issued, the question of status of the account as closed, did not arise. It is a case concerning banking transaction. In our view, no bank is going to issue No Due Certificate if any amount concerning the account of a person is outstanding. There is no document in writing on the part of the complainant regarding assurance on his part to pay Rs. 3,505/-. Moreover, opposite parties issued No Objection Certificate in the form of documents, copies of which are Ex. C.5& Ex.C.6. They do not show that No Due Certificate/No Objection Certificate has been issued subject to the condition that amount of Rs. 3,505/- is payable by the complainant. Opposite parties-bank has given No Objection Certificate for removing its lien on the Accent Car bearing registration No. PB-03K-8080 without any rider. This is not the end of the matter. Admittedly, opposite party-bank has made refund of Rs.12,050/- to the complainant through cheque dated 9.7.2007. It was handed over to the complainant on 18.7.2007 as is evident from his affidavit Ex.C.8. Had the amount of Rs. 3,505/- been outstanding, the question of payment of Rs. 12,050/- did not arise. Opposite parties are estopped from taking this plea concerning the outstanding amount. Complainant paid the amount to the opposite parties on 9.4.2007. They were bound to issue No Dues Certificate immediately. They continued putting off the matter regarding the issuance of No Objection Certificate demanded by the complainant for getting the HPA cancelled from the registration certificate of the car without any sufficient, reasonable and probable cause. Complainant sold the car to Sh. Avtar Singh on 13.4.2007 through broker Sh. Pawan Kumar with the understanding that he would handover No Objection Certificate to him upto 23.4.2007, failing which he would be liable to pay Rs. 500/- per day as penalty. Complainant intimated this fact to the Senior Manager of the opposite parties-bank vide letter dated 14.5.2007. Ultimately, No Objection Certificate dated 18.5.2007 was issued by opposite party No.1 on 20.5.2007 i.e. after 27 days after the settled date. As discussed above, amount of Rs. 12,050/- was withdrawn by the opposite parties-bank from the saving account of the complainant without his consent or authority. In this situation, unescapable conclusion is that the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is writ large. <br /> 12. Now question is as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In our view, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to pay interest @ 9% P.A on Rs. 12,050/- from 16.4.2007 till 18.7.2007. Due to the deficiency in services rendered by the opposite parties, complainant has to pay Rs. 13,500/- to Sh. Avtar Singh through Sh. Pawan Kumar, Broker as is evident from his affidavits and the affidavit Ex. C.2 of Sh. Pawan Kumar. Hence, further direction which is warranted to the opposite parties is to pay this amount to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from 20.5.2007 till payment. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental tension, agony and loss to physical health. There is no case to allow it in view of the relief which is going to be accorded as above. Out of compensation and interest, one can be allowed.<br /> 13. In the premises written above, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Pay interest to the complainant on Rs. 12,050/- @ 9% P.A from 16.4.2007 till 18.7.2007.<br /> ( ii ) Pay Rs. 13,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A from 20.5.2007 till payment.<br /> ( iii ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 14. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 3.9.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />