DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.39/20.03.2008 Decided on : 04.02.2009 1.Net Ram S/o Sh.Kewal Krishan, resident of Brahm Kumari Ashram Street, W.No.14, Street No.10, Jawaharke Road, Mansa. 2.Madhubala W/o Sh.Net Ram S/o Sh.Kewal Krishan, resident of Brahm Kumari Ashram Street, W.No.14, Street No.10, Jawaharke Road, Mansa. ..... Complainants. VERSUS 1.Centurion Bank of Punjab, Branch Mansa through its Branch Manager. 2.Centurion Bank of Punjab, Branch Bathinda through its Branch Manager ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.K.C.Garg, Advocate, counsel for the complainants. Sh.Amandeep Kansal, Advocate, counsel for the Opposite Parties. Quorum: Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. Sh.Net Ram and his wife Smt.Madhubala, have jointly filed this complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act') against the Centurion Bank of Punjab, through its Contd.......2 : 2 : branches situated at Mansa and Bathinda. As per averments, made in the complaint, the complainants secured house loan, in the sum of Rs.10 lacs from the opposite parties, which has to be refunded by them, in equal installments, in the sum of Rs.9,221/- per month, including agreed rate of interest, as such, the complainants are consumers, under the opposite parties, qua the loan account. The complainants are regularly making payment of installments of loan, through post dated cheques, delivered by them, to the opposite parties, at the time of advancement of loan. As per the arrangement between the parties, the opposite parties, were to encash the cheques delivered to them by the complainants, drawn on their Account No.1128 maintained with Canara Bank, and thereafter, they were entitled, to encash the cheques, drawn on their Account No.4ESB1514142, maintained with Centurion Bank of Punjab. The officials of the opposite parties, had assured the complainants, on telephone or by post, that they would abide by the understanding between the parties, for sequence presentation of cheques, to their bankers, in the above said order, but they intentionally, wilfully and carelessly presented the cheques, at first instance drawn on account of the account maintained with the Centurion Bank of Punjab and withheld, the cheques drawn by them on their account maintained with Canara Bank, Mansa. The cheques presented by the opposite parties for encashment to Centurion Bank, Mansa, have been dishonoured, for want of sufficient funds in the account of the complainants. The opposite parties did not convey the requisite information regarding dishonouring of the cheques presented by them, to the complainants and without giving information to them, they have debited, the amount, on account of over due charges and also on account of dishonouring of the cheques. The complainants came to know about the mal practice adopted by the officials of the OP bank about the presentation of cheques, dishonouring thereof by Canara Bank, Mansa, when they secured the copy of their statement of loan account. On being approached, Contd.......3 : 3 : the officials again gave assurance to the complainants not to present the cheques drawn by them in the account maintained in Canara Bank in future. They also admitted mistake on their part, as such, the amount charged in the loan account of the complainants, on account of dishonouring of the cheques and over draft charges, is due to negligence, on their part for which opposite parties were not entitled to burden the complainants, as such, there is deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties, in maintenance of the loan account of the complainants, because of which they have been subjected to mental and physical harassment. It is also alleged that the complainants secured the loan from their branch situated at Mansa, but their officials, without the consent of the complainants, transferred the same, to their branch situated at Bathinda, which is unfair trade practice, and is against the provisions of Banking Act. The officials of the OP bank also misbehaved with them and also informed them, that they have destroyed the cheques, at the time of advancement of loan. In view of their conduct, the complainants apprehend that cheques delivered by them to the opposite parties, may be again misused by their officials, who are indulging in unfair trade practice. As the opposite parties, have failed to stop from charging the amount on account of over due charges and dishonouring of the cheques, in the loan account of the complainants, inspite of service of notice ,dated 6.2.2008, by them, upon the opposite parties, hence this complaint, for giving direction, to them, restraining them, from charging any extra amount, from the loan account of the complainants and for payment of Rs.50,000/-, on account of compensation, for mental and physical harassment, and costs in the sum of Rs.4,500/-, to compensate them for expenses incurred, by them , for filing the instant complaint alongwith interest, at the rate of 12% per annum. 2. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that complaint is not maintainable, as there is no deficiency in service, on their part, in Contd.......4 : 4 : maintaining the loan account of the complainants; that complainants have no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint, as they are not consumers, under the opposite parties; that the controversy can be resolved better by the civil Court, because parties need to lead elaborate evidence to prove their respective contention; that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and complainants have concealed the material facts from this Forum, as such, their complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, factum of advancement of house loan in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and payment thereof in installments in the sum of Rs.9,221/- per month with interest has been admitted, but it is denied that complainants are consumers, under the opposite parties. Rather it is submitted that relationship between the complainants and the opposite parties is that of creditor and debitor. It is submitted that complainants have frequently committed default in repayment of loan amount and post dated cheques delivered by them at the time of advancement of loan to the opposite parties have been dishonoured and due to said reason, opposite parties have rightly debited over due charges and amount on account of dishonouring of the cheques in their loan account as per agreement of loan. It is denied that there was any agreement between the parties about the presentation of cheques drawn on Canara Bank by the complainants before presentation of cheques drawn by them on Centurion Bank of Punjab. It is submitted that the complainants did not maintain sufficient balance in their loan account because of which their cheques have been dishonoured and inspite of being approached several times on telephone by the officials of the opposite parties, they have failed to regularize their loan account and to maintain sufficient balance in their accounts. It was denied that any assurance was given by the officials of the opposite parties to the complainants to first present the cheques drawn on Canara Bank and thereafter on Centurion Bank of Punjab. Rest of the allegations, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal Contd.......5 : 5 : of the same, with costs. 3. On being called upon, by this Forum, to do so, the complainant, Net Ram tendered his affidavit Ext.C-1, and complainant, Smt.Madhubala his wife furnished her affidavit Ext.C-6. The complainants also tendered photo copies of statements of their loan account Ext.C-2 to C-5 and all cheques drawn by them on Centurion Bank of Punjab Ext.C-7 to C-20. On the other hand, Sh.Aditya Bikram furnished his affidavit Ext.OP-1 and their counsel closed evidence on their behalf. 4. We have heard the learned counsel, for the parties and gone through, the facts borne on record, carefully, with their kind assistance. 5. At the out set, learned counsel for the opposite parties Sh. Amandeep Kansal, Advocate, has argued that Branch of opposite parties at Mansa had no concern with their branch situated at Bathinda which advanced the house loan to the complainants, as such, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the instant complaint. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainants Sh.K.C.Garg, Advocate argued that the branch office of the OP bank is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, as such, it has jurisdiction to try the complaint. 7. We do not find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties because a complaint can be instituted in a District Forum in the local limits of whose jurisdiction any of the opposite parties at the time of institution of the complaint voluntarily carries on business or has a branch office as envisaged in Sub Section(b) of Section 11 of the Act. It is not disputed that the branch office of the opposite parties is also carrying on business also at Mansa. Therefore, even if, the loan, has been advanced, by their branch situated, at Bathinda, it does not oust the territorial jurisdiction, of this Forum. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties for return of the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction to the complainants thus stand repelled. Contd.......6 : 6 : 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the complainants has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint regarding arrangement for presentation of the cheques delivered by them to the opposite parties for encashment and has submitted that cheques drawn on the Centurion Bank of Punjab have been dishonoured due to mischief played by the officials of the opposite parties or their carelessness, as such, they were not entitled to credit any amount to the loan account of the complainants on account of over due charges and charges for dishonouring of the cheques presented by them and assurance given by them to the Centurion Bank of Punjab. Learned counsel has also submitted that officials of the opposite parties have transferred the loan account of the complainants to the Bathinda branch without securing their consent which is unfair trade practice in terms of provisions of Section 2 ( r ) of the Act and deficiency in service on their part. The learned counsel argued that complainants have suffered financial loss and have undergone mental and physical agony due to conduct of the officials of the opposite parties, as such, they deserve to be compensated and the opposite parties are liable to pay them costs of expenditure incurred by them for filing of the instant complaint. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the complainants have failed to produce on record any oral and documentary evidence to prove that there was some oral understanding between them and the opposite parties regarding sequence of presentation of the cheques to their bankers or about the assurance given by the opposite parties except their own affidavit. Learned counsel has also submitted that loan was advanced to the complainants by their branch situated at Bathinda and complainants have failed to adduce on recored any evidence that initially they secured loan from the Mansa branch of the opposite parties or that their officials ever misbehaved with them and charges have been levied from the complainants on account of over due charges and dishonouring of the cheques delivered by them for the refund Contd.......7 : 7 : of amount of loan, as such, neither any unfair trade practice has been adopted by the opposite parties, nor there is any deficiency in service on their part which may warrant interference by this Forum. Learned counsel has argued that infact this complaint has been filed by the complainants to save from criminal liability on them due to dishonouring of the cheques delivered by them for refund of the loan secured by them,as such, their complaint is liable to dismissed with costs as per the provisions of Section 26 of the Act. 10. As per the admitted facts, the complainants, have secured house loan, in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, from the opposite parties, which they have agreed to refund in monthly installments, in the sum of Rs.9,221/- each. It is also not disputed that complainants, have delivered post dated cheques to the opposite parties drawn on their accounts maintained with Canara bank and Centurion bank of Punjab at the time of securing loan by way of letter of security. The plea of the complainants is, that as per agreement between them and the opposite parties, cheques drawn by them in the account, maintained with Canara Bank, were to be presented before presentment of their cheques drawn on their account maintained with the Opposite parties. This fact is not corroborated by any documentary proof. In the absence of any such evidence, much confidence cannot be imposed in the affidavit tendered by the complainant in evidence especially when there is nothing on record, suggesting that complainants have ever made any representation to the opposite parties raising protest against the presentation of cheques delivered by them against the arrangement. The post dated cheques can be presented as per their dates of their validity and not earlier or on expiry thereof. The complainants have not alleged any previous hostile animus on the part of the officials of the opposite parties towards them. The plea of the complainants, that opposite parties, have transferred their loan account to their branch at Bhatinda is also not corroborated by any evidence, whereas Sh. Aditya Vikram, Contd.......8 : 8 : Manager of the opposite parties bank, has denied the said fact in his affidavit Ext.OP-1. In case the opposite parties had transferred the loan account of the complainants to their branch at Bathinda from Mansa, without their consent then complainants could have proved the said fact by getting produced the documents in possession of the opposite parties, with the intervention of this Forum, but no such action, has been initiated by them. The complainants have not produced any documentary evidence to show that initially loan was advanced to them by the branch of the opposite parties, situated at Mansa. As per own plea of the complainants, cheques drawn by them on their account maintained with the Canara Bank, have been dishonoured, because of insufficiency of funds as they were presented against arrangement. Therefore, non production of documentary evidence for dishonouring of those cheques is of no consequence and on that score an adverse inference cannot be drawn against the opposite parties . The copies of the statements of account tendered in evidence by the complainant Ext.C-3 to C-5 contains several entries regarding debit and credit. The opposite parties have levied charges for dishonouring of the cheque in the loan account of the complainants. The complainant was supposed to verify the status of their loan account periodically. The intimation regarding dishonouring of the cheque was to be sent by the opposite parties in case they intended to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 11. As per the copies of the statements of account Ext.C-3 to C-5, admittedly, loan has been advanced, by the opposite parties, to the complainants, in the year 2004, but first entry pertains to 18.1.2000 and succeeding entry pertains to 8.10.2007. However, they apparently appears to be computer error because on 6.10.2007 same entry has been found reflected in the sum of Rs.9,221/- and amount of Rs.400/- is shown debited against entry made on 7.11.2007. The opposite parties have charged different amount in the loan account of the complainant against 'overdue Contd.......9 : 9 : charges' and on account of 'bouncing of their cheques' in the year 2007. The factum of dishonouring of the cheques and delay in deposit of installments is not disputed even by the complainants. Therefore, we are constrained to reject the plea of the complainant that the opposite parties have debited substantial amount from their loan account on account of overdue charges and bouncing of their cheques in arbitrary manner or have resorted to unfair trade practice by transferring their account from Mansa to Bathinda. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we have come to the conclusion that complainants, have failed to establish, that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, so far as, presentation of cheques, against arrangement, transfer of their loan from their branch situated at Mansa to Bathinda. Therefore, the conduct of the complainants suggests that they have filed this complaint to achieve some ulterior motive. As such, their plea cannot be accepted that they have undergone physical and mental harassment and they have suffered any financial loss on account of any arbitrary act, done by the officials, of the opposite parties. 13. In the light of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 14. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 04.02.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
