Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/358/2013

Kulwant Singh S/o Mohan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indusind Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devender Mehta

17 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                          Complaint  No.358  of 2013.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 14.05.2013

                                                                                          Date of decision: 17.01.2017.

Kulwant Singh aged about 26 years son of Shri Mohan Singh, resident of village Kartarpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                         …Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. Indusind Bank Ltd. near Telephone Exchange, Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.
2. Indusind Bank Ltd. Bhageria House, 43, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, through its Divisional Manager.                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                         …Respondents.

  

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Devender Mehla, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. G.S.Reen, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

 

ORDER( ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     Complainant Kulwant Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant obtained a loan from the respondents (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs Bank) for purchase of a truck vide loan account No. HY-000561H, Loaner Code No. HAHY0467. The loan was taken to the tune of Rs. 5,25,000/- which was payable in installments. The complainant paid all the installments in respect of loan in question on 01.03.2013 and nothing remains outstanding towards the complainant. After that complainant demanded “No Dues Certificate” from the OP No.1 but he kept on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Upon which, the complainant served a registered legal notice but the Ops Bank submitted a false reply dated 06.05.2013 by alleging therein that complainant also stood guarantor in agreement HDY-00046D in which loan was taken by one Amrik Singh, whereas the complainant has not stood guarantor in any case and the Op No.1 has not issued the NOC. Hence this complaint.

3.                     In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of National Permit as Annexure C-1 and Photo copies of receipts of installments as Annexure C-2 to C-36 and closed his evidence.

4.                     Upon notice, OPs Bank appeared and filed its written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file and maintain the present complaint against the OPs; an arbitration award has already been passed against the complainant and the execution of the same is pending in the Civil Court at Jagadhri, so this Forum have no jurisdiction and on merit it has been admitted that complainant obtained financial assistance from the OPs Bank and further it has also been admitted that he has cleared the said loan i.e. HY000561H. However, it has been mentioned that complainant alongwith one Sh. Amrik Singh has also obtained another loan from the OPs Bank under account No. HDY 00046D dated 31.05.2011 and in this very case, the complainant is co-borrower and that loan case is still pending against the complainant and his co-borrower Amrik Singh as they have failed to clear outstanding amount of the loan. Upon which, the Ops Bank initiated Arbitration Proceedings against the complainant and his co-borrower Sh. Amrik Singh and an award dated 22.06.2012 was passed against the complainant as well as said Amrik Singh and execution of the same is pending before the Hon’ble District Judge at Jagadhri. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the complaint as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs Bank.

5.                     In support of their version, Sh. Yudhvir Legal Manager tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure RW/A and documents such as photo copy of Arbitration Award as Annexure OP1/A, Photo copy of interim order passed by Sh. Sandeep Garg, ADJ dated 18.05.2015 which is neither attested nor certified as Annexure OP1/B, Photo copy of registered GPA as Annexure OP1/C, Photo copy of loan agreement in respect of loan bearing No. HDY00046D as Annexure OP1/D and Photo copy of master circular dated 01.07.2008 as Annexure OP1/E and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs Bank as from the perusal of loan agreement Annexure OP1/D, it is duly evident that complainant Kulwant Singh was co-borrower with Sh. Amrik Singh and as per version of the Ops Bank, that loan case is still pending against the complainant and his co-borrower Sh. Amrik Singh. The version of the Ops Bank has not been rebutted by the complainant by filing re-joinder or producing any cogent evidence. Furthermore, as per version of the Ops Bank, the execution of the award passed by the Arbitrator is also pending before the Hon’ble District Court, Jagadhri which is also duly evident from the copy of interim order passed by Sh. Sandeep Garg, A.D.J, Jagadhri on 18.05.2015, copy of which is Annexure OP1/B. Although the complainant has cleared the loan amount in respect of loan account HY000561H (as this fact has been admitted by the OPs Bank in their written statement) even then when the complainant is co-borrower with one Sh. Amrik Singh in loan account No. HDY00046D and in that loan account, the loan amount is still pending then how the complainant can ask for NOC from the OPs Bank as the Ops Bank has lien on all the property lying with the Bank. The same view has been held in case titled as Bank of India Versus Sudershan Kumar Mittal 2015(2) CLT Page 345 (NC) wherein it has been held that “ Bank did not commit any deficiency in applying the principle of lien over all assets of the complainant coming within the purview of the Security documents.”

8.                     In the circumstances noted above and case law titled as Bank of India Versus Sudershan Kumar Mittal (supra) we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs Bank and complainant is not entitled to get any relief.  

9.                     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. 17.01.2017.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                    (S.C. SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.