Punjab

Sangrur

RBT/CC/18/447

Subhash Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indusind Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R.S Mudahi

04 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                              Complaint No.  RBT/CC/447/2018

   Instituted on:    29.11.2018

                                                               Decided on:     04.11.2022

 

Subhash Kumar aged about 40 years son of Sh. Lakshmi Parshad, resident of Village Hamjhari, Tehsil Patran, Distt. Patiala 147105.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     The Managing Director, Indusind Bank Ltd. PO: 9421, Chakla MDC Andheri (E) Mumbai 400093.

2.     The Branch Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd. Branch Samana, Near Indane Gas Agency, Bhawanigarh Road, Samana, Tehsil Samana, Distt. Patiala.

3.     Punjab & Sind Bank, Branch Hamjhari, Tehsil Patran, Distt. Patiala through Branch Manager.

4.     The Managing Director, Punjab & Sind Bank, Head Office, 211, Rajindra Place, New Delhi 110008.

             ….Opposite parties

For complainant         : Shri R.K. Mudahi, Adv.              

For OP No.1              : Exparte.

For OP No.2              : Shri J.S.Moudgil, Adv.

For OP No.3&4         : Shri C.S.Kwatra, Adv.

 

 

Quorum                                           

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL:    PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                          :    MEMBER

KANWALJEET SINGH             :    MEMBER

 

 

ORDER

SARITA GARG, MEMBER.            

1.             Arguments through video conferencing heard. This complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala in view of orders of Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh vide endorsement number 10226 of 26.11.2021.

2.             Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging inter-alia that he availed the services of the OP number 2 by getting an auto loan to the tune of Rs.32,000/- and the vehicle was got registered as PB-11-BG-0852. Further case of complainant is that the complainant paid all the instalmetns regularly from 21.6.2013 to 24.1.2015 and cleared the whole loan. In the present case grievance of complainant is that when he downloaded his CIBIL report, he found wrong remarks and an amount of Rs.4201.69 was shown outstanding against the complainant on the lame excuse that cheque bearing number 160245 dated 21.11.2013 was not encashed, but the said cheque for Rs.1960/- had already been encashed.  The said amount of Rs.1960/- was not credited by OP number 2 despite best efforts of the complainant and as such the complainant got the statement for the period from 1.11.2013 to 30.1.2015 to show that the said cheque has already been cleared. As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to clear the loan account, correct the CIBIL of the complainant and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

3.             Record shows that OP number 1 was proceeded against exparte.

4.             Earlier OP number 3 and 4 were proceeded against exparte, but they filed an application for setting aside exparte proceedings order dated 6.3.2019, which was allowed on 24.5.2019 only to join the proceedings onwards without filing any written reply or evidence.

5.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant availed loan facility of Rs.32,000/- which was to be repaid alongwith interest of Rs.7200/- i.e total Rs.39,200/- in 20 equal instalments of Rs.1960/- each.  The complainant paid one EMI in advance and issued 19 post dated cheques of Rs.1960/- each. The case of OP is that cheque bearing number 160245 for Rs.1960/- was returned by his banker for want of sufficient funds, as such, now total amount of Rs.7014/- is outstanding against the complainant. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

6.             The complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16 copies of documents and closed evidence. Similarly, OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-10 copies of documents and closed evidence.

7.             A bare perusal of the complaint reveals that there is a dispute about the non deposit of the cheque bearing number 160245 dated 21.11.2013 for Rs.1960/- in the loan account of the complainant by OP number 2, whereas the said amount of Rs.1960/- has already been debited to the account of the complainant maintained by him with the  OP number 1.  Further this fact is also evident from the copy of statement of Punjab and Sind Bank, Ex.C-6, which clearly show that an amount of Rs.1960/- against cheque number 160245 was debited to the account of the complainant on 21.11.2013. Further this fact is also supportedby the copy of cheque Ex.C-2 showing stamp of AXIS Bank Limited of even date i.e. 21.11.2013. Again copy of statement Ex.C-9 clearly shows a debit of Rs.1960/- to the account of the complainant against the cheque number 160245.  Ex.C-11 is the copy of legal notice served upon the OP number 1 and 2 for issuance of the no due certificate to the complainant.  Ex.C-14 and Ex.C-15 are the copies of letters sent to the OP number 2.  Though OPs number 1 and 2 have denied the allegations leveled in the complaint, but no evidence to corroborate their contention has been produced on record.  Though OPs number 3 and 4 have produced on the file the written arguments, but it is worth mentioning here that their right to file reply and produce evidence was closed by the order of this Commission as they were proceeded against exparte. In the circumstances of the case, we find it to be a fit case, which deserves to be allowed against OPs number 1 and 2 as no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops number 3 and 4 has been established on record.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number  2 to credit the amount of Rs.1960/- in the account of complainant on 21.11.2013 and thereafter issue no due certificate after clearing the whole loan account without charging any amount from the complainant as the complainant has already paid the whole loan amount in time to the OP. The OP number 2 is also directed to intimate the CIBIL authorities about the clearance of the loan amount by the complainant. We also direct OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/-  as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment  and an amount of Rs.5000/- as  litigation expenses. The complaint against OPs number 3 and 4 is dismissed.

9.             This complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases.

10.            This order be complied with within a  period of sixty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                November 4, 2022.

 

         (Kanwaljeet Singh)  (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                 Member             Member                     President