Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1050/2011

Baljeet S/o Jhandu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Scheduled Caste Finance And Development Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

None for complainant.

23 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                             Complaint No. 1050 of 2011.

                                                                                             Date of institution: 4.10.2011.

                                                                                             Date of decision:23.10.2015.

Baljeet age 40 years son of Sh. Jhandu Ram, resident of village Udhamgarh, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                                                                        …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Haryana Scheduled Castes Finance & Development Corporation Limited, Branch Office House No. B-IX, 399-B, Friends Colony, Near Kamani Chowk, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.                                                
2. The Managing Director, Yamuna Nagar Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                    
3. The Udhamgarh Co-Operative Bank Limited, Branch Udhamgarh, at present situated at Buria, District Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.
4. Raghubir, cashier of the Udhamgarh Co-Operative Bank Limited, Branch Udhamgarh, at present situated at Buria, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                    …opposite parties.

 

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. S.K.Goindwal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               Sh. N.S.Saini, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

               Sh. P.K.Kashyap, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.2 to 4.        

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Baljeet has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents ( hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed not to recover a sum of Rs. 34790/- from the complainant till the final disposal of the present complaint and further refund of excessive amount after proper calculation with interest and also to pay Rs. 60,000/- on account of mental agony, physically harassment and financial loss etc.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is belonging to schedule caste and on 24.8.1998 he applied loan for running electricity shop to the OP No.1 and after approval OP No.1 forwarded the loan form to the OPs No.2 & 3, thereby the complainant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from OPs No.1 to 3 banks. It was assured to the complainant by Op No.4 on behalf of Op Bank that as per Government Scheme a sum of Rs. 6000/- has been adjusted in the loan account of the complainant as subsidy amount and not only this prior to sanctioning the loan amount the Op No.4 had received a sum of Rs. 5000/- from the complainant by saying that the said amount is expenses of file charges and other expenses and the loan amount had to be deposited in 48 installments. The complainant made regular payments of loan to the OP Bank against receipts and from September 1998 to December 2004 the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 60740/- through various installments i.e. entire amount of loan have been received by Op No.4 being cashier of the OP No.2 & 3 banks. However, in the month of September 2011, the complainant received a notice bearing No. 67/99 serial No.2936 dated 6.9.2011 from the OP Bank in which the OP bank has demanded a sum of Rs. 14750/- from the complainant. Not only this a sum of Rs. 20040/- has also been demanded by OPs No.2 & 3 from the complainant which is absolutely wrong and illegal and liable to be waived off because OP Bank has already been received a sum of Rs. 60470/- i.e. more than double amount of the borrower amount from the complainant. After receiving the notice complainant visited the office of OP Bank and asked the officials of the Op Bank to withdraw the said notice but instead of complying the genuine request of the complainant, officials of the bank threatened that the amount will be recovered from the complainant forcibly. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi, stopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct, without jurisdiction and on merit it has been admitted that complainant belongs to schedule caste and the OP No.1 has sent an amount of Rs. 12250/- i.e. Rs. 6000/- as subsidy and Rs. 6250/- as margin money to the cooperative Bank i.e. OP No.2 & 3 vide cheque No. 519288 dated 24.8.1998 drawn at State Bank of Patiala Industrial Area, Yamuna Nagar and the complainant has entered into an agreement dated 24.8.1998 with the OP No.1 in which it was specifically stated that amount of margin money of Rs. 6250/- was to be paid in 10 installments half yearly of Rs. 625/- each alongwith 4% interest but the complainant did not pay even a single installment to the OP No.1 since the last 14 years inspite of repeated notice and now a sum of Rs. 13071/- i.e. 6250/- principal amount plus Rs. 3375/- as interest plus 3456/- as penal  interest is due towards the complainant of OP No.1 up to 31.3.2012 as per loan account bearing No. 67/99 besides future interest till realization and 5% expenses of Collector case is to be borne by the complainant. Rest allegations have been denied and lastly prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.                     OPs No.2 to 4 appeared and filed their written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, locus standi, no cause of action, without jurisdiction for want of notice under section 124 of the Cooperative Society Act and on merit, it has been stated that the true facts are that complainant had obtained a crop loan four times from the OPs No.2 to 4 and as per statement of account of the complainant an amount of Rs. 18228/- was due up to 26.2.2010 out of which 3540/- had been paid by Haryana Government and now Rs. 14688/- is due against the complainant as on 14.7.2011. it has been further submitted that complainant had also obtained term loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the OPs on 9.9.1998 and Rs. 31418/- as on 31.12.2011 are outstanding in the said loan account. It has been further mentioned that OPs No.2 to 4 are working under the State Government and as per guidelines of Haryana Cooperative Society Act 1984 and as per Cooperative Society Act a notice under section 124 is mandatory and without this no suit shall be instituted against the Cooperative Society or any of its officer in respect of any touching the business of society until the expiration of period of 2 months of notice. Lastly prayed that as the complainant remained failed to repay the same regularly and become defaulter in repaying the same. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and copy of  account statement is Annexure R-1.

5.                     To prove the case counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents as Annexure C-1 to C-14  which are some receipts of the payment and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, evidence of OP No.1 was closed without any documents whereas OPs No. 2 to 4 tendered into evidence account statement as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.2 to 4.

7.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OPs reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8.                     The only plea of the complainant is that OPs be directed not to recover a sum of Rs. 34790/- from the complainant and to refund the excessive amount after proper calculation as the complainant has made all the payments of loan amount to the OPs and nothing is due against him. In support of his version the complainant filed some receipts Annexure C-1 to C-14.

9.                     On the other hand, the version of the OP No.1 is that complainant never deposited even a single installment with the Nigam after passing of about 14 years till date and now a sum of Rs. 13071/- i.e. 6250/- principal amount and 3375/- as interest and 3446/- as penal interest is due towards the complainant up to 31.3.2012.

10.                   Learned counsel of OPs No.2 to 4 also argued that an amount of Rs. 14688/- is due up to 31.3.2011 against the complainant., Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 to 4. Further learned counsel of OPs No.2 to 4 argued that the transaction between the parties are of commercial nature as the complainant took the loan from the OPs for running the shop of electric work. Hence, the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer defined in under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

11.                   It is not disputed that the complainant obtained a loan for running the shop of electricity work from OPs No. 2 to 4 which was sanctioned and approved by OP No.1. The arguments advanced by counsel for the complainant is not tenable as the complainant remained totally failed to convince this Forum that entire loan has been repaid by the complainant to OP No.1 and to OPs No.2 to 4. Even the complainant has not summoned any official of OPs No.1 to 4 to prove his case with the record of loan file. Further learned counsel for the complainant failed to convince this Forum that notice under section 124 of the Haryana Cooperative Society Act 1984 was not necessary prior to filing the present complaint.

12.                   On the other hand, from the perusal of the Annexure R-1 account statement, it is evident that some amount is due against the complainant and in the absence of any documentary evidence on behalf of complainant that entire loan amount has been repaid by the complainant, this Forum is of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, the complaint of the complainant deserves to be dismissal being devoid of any merit.

13.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.: 23.10.2015.                     

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.