DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.502 of 11-11-2013
Decided on 09-01-2014
Manoj Singla S/o Kesar Chand R/o St. No.1/5, Adarsh Nagar, Bathinda, Tehsil & District Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited, near Gole Market, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.
.......Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.R.D Goyal, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite party: Sh.D.C Garg, counsel for the opposite party.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that M/s Krishna Garments has availed the cash credit facility from the opposite party and the complainant stood its guarantor and executed the guarantee deed vide which he agreed to repay the loan amount if M/s Krishna Garments fails to repay the same. The complainant has deposited his registered sale deed. The complainant withdrew his guarantee and intimated the same to the opposite party, his guarantee has been cancelled and the sale deed has been returned to him by the opposite party. After the cancellation of the guaranteeship for M/s Krishna Garments by the complainant, the other person stood its guarantor. The complainant has availed the loan facility on dated 5.1.2011 as per the account statement of the opposite party, it got deposited some documents from him and he is depositing the installments well in time and did not become the defaulter regarding the loan taken by him. The complainant approached the office of the opposite party and intended to get the necessary information under Right to Information Act regarding the cancellation of his guarantee in favour of M/s Krishna Garments and came to know about the dues of his loan account on dated 16.10.2013 and 19.10.2013, but Mr.Suneet Singh, the then Branch Manager of the opposite party refused to accept his application without assigning any reason. The opposite party has failed to issue No Due Certificate regarding the account of the complainant after adjusting all the account and regarding the account of M/s Krishna Garments, which amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite party to issue him No Due Certificate regarding the loan facility granted to M/s Krishna Garments being guarantor and his loan after adjusting all the dues alongwith cost and compensation or to give any other additional or alternative or consequential relief for which he may be found entitled to.
2. The opposite party after appearing before this Forum has filed its written statement and pleaded that the complainant did not disclose that he took two more loans on the said property and deposited the registered sale deed No.7753 dated 21.1.2010 with the Bank. The complainant gave guarantee in CC account of M/s Krishna Garments by giving the abovesaid property under equitable mortgage and also gave personal guarantee in the account of M/s Krishna Garments, sole Proprietor Mr.Girowar S/o Jaskaran. The opposite party further pleaded that the true facts are that there is one PCL loan in the name of Manoj Singla, the complainant, which is still outstanding and he has not paid the installments in time although the opposite party duly sent him the notices but till date he has not paid the loan amount of personal loan. The opposite party was ready to give NOC in that PCL account to the complainant. In CC case of M/s Krishna Garments, there is a personal guarantee deed executed by Manoj Singla in favour of the Bank and said personal guarantee still stands and liability of the complainant is joint and co-extensive with the borrower, however only property was released in his name and the new charge on the property of Mr.Vinod Gupta was created in the account of M/s Krishna Garments. The personal guarantee has not been withdrawn by Manoj Singla, the complainant from the account of M/s Krishna Garments. The property was released to the complainant after adjusting his two loan account:-One is against the property and one is against the CC Limit No.106. All the papers under RTI Act have duly been supplied to the complainant, hence this complaint deserves dismissal on this ground.
3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. The complainant stood guarantor of M/s Krishna Garments and executed the guarantee deed in which he agreed to repay the loan amount if M/s Krishna Garments fails to repay the same. For this, the complainant has deposited his registered sale deed. Thereafter the complainant withdrew his guarantee and intimated the same to the opposite party, his guarantee has been cancelled and the sale deed has been returned to him by the opposite party. After the cancellation of the guaranteeship for M/s Krishna Garments by the complainant, the other person namely Mr.Vinod Gupta stood its guarantor. The complainant has availed the personal loan facility on dated 5.1.2011 as per the account statement of the opposite party, it got deposited some documents from him and he has been depositing the installments well within time and did not become the defaulter regarding the loan taken by him. On receiving the information under Right to Information Act, the complainant came to know about the dues of his loan account of dated 16.10.2013 and 19.10.2013, but the official of the opposite party Mr.Suneet Singh, the then Branch Manager refused to accept his application without assigning any reasons. The opposite party has failed to issue No Due Certificate regarding the account of the complainant after adjusting all the account and regarding the account of M/s Krishna Garments, due to which he has suffered the mental harassment. As the guarantee in the name of the complainant stood cancelled, he is not liable for the repayment of the cash credit limit granted to M/s Krishna Garment. The complainant submitted that he is ready to deposit his personal loan amount alongwith upto date interest in equal 3 installments. In the account statement, Ex.OP1/2, the opposite party has wrongly charged the amount of Rs.7500/- and counsel fee.
6. On the other hand the submission of the opposite party is that the complainant took two more loans on the said property and deposited the registered sale deed No.7753 dated 21.1.2010 with the Bank. The complainant gave guarantee in CC account of M/s Krishna Garments by giving the abovesaid property under equitable mortgaged and also gave personal guarantee in the account of M/s Krishna Garments, sole Proprietor Mr.Girowar S/o Jaskaran. There is one PCL loan in the name of Manoj Singla, the complainant, which is still outstanding and he has not paid the installments in time although the opposite party sent him the notices. In CC case of M/s Krishna Garments, there is a personal guarantee deed executed by Manoj Singla in favour of the Bank and said personal guarantee still stands and liability of the complainant is joint and co-extensive with the borrower, however only property was released in his name and the new charge on the property of Mr.Vinod Gupta was created in the account of M/s Krishna Garments. The personal guarantee has not been withdrawn by Manoj Singla, the complainant from the account of M/s Krishna Garments.
7. In the personal loan account of the complainant i.e. account bearing No.0338265300000137, the amount of Rs.31,042/- is shown as defaulting amount vide Ex.C5. The account bearing No.0338020100000108 is of M/s Krishna Garments, in which the amount of Rs.7,53,635/- is shown, whereas the complainant has withdrawn his guarantee and has not withdrawn his personal liability. A perusal of Ex.C7 shows that in the proposal for renewal of extending the credit limit Sh.Manoj Singh, the complainant is the only guarantor. In Ex.C7, in Para No.15 of Recommendations (with securities to be held), the remarks are given as under:-
“Keeping in view the factors sales proceeds and projection for the rent financial years the cash credit limit of Rs.7 lacs and recommended for renewal for a period of one year subject to renewal after revival under usual terms and conditions, the limit is secured by & Hyp. Of block II assignment of books debts III. Extension of charge on properly in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta bearing sale deed No.5156 dated 21.9.2006 already kept in M/C 26800-80 and CC-98 & 3rd party guarantee of Manoj Singla and Mr.Vinod Gupta.”
A perusal of Ex.C7, Para No.15 shows the 3rd party guarantee of Manoj Singla and Vinod Gupta stands as it is. The column No.9(b) of Ex.C8 again shows that 3rd party guarantee of Manoj Singla as guarantor. The relevant portion of Ex.C8 of Clause 9(b) is reproduced:-
“9(b)(ii):-Mortgage of immovable properly landed/house property:-Ext. of charge on property in the name of Manoj Singla kept in M/L SO & CC98.”
The renewal of cash credit, loan application is dated 15.12.2012. The loan application form, Ex.C9, for the renewal credit limit, again shows 3rd party guarantee of Manoj Singla. The relevant portion of Ex.C9 of Clause 9(b) is also reproduced:-
“9(b)(ii):-Mortgage of immovable properly landed/house property:-Extension of charge on property in the name of Manoj Singla kept in CC-106 sale proceeds.”
8. In Ex.C10, in para No.15(iii) of Recommendation (with securities to be held), it has been specifically mentioned 'Extension of charge on property in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta bearing sale deed 5156 dated 21.9.2006 already kept in M/L 26800-80 & CC-90 & 3rd party guarantee of Manoj Singla and Vinod Gupta'. Manoj Singla has given the personal statement as guarantor. The letter dated 23.6.2011, Ex.C13, has been written to Branch Manager, Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., Bathinda by the other guarantor Vinod Gupta. Since the personal guarantee has not been withdrawn by the complainant, the opposite party has not issued him No Due Certificate (NOC). A perusal of documents shows that Manoj Singla, the complainant and Vinod Gupta both stood guarantor to M/s Krishna Garments. The complainant has withdrawn his personal guarantee. The opposite party admitted that only the property was released in the name of the complainant and the new charge on the property of Mr.Vinod Gupta was created in the account of M/s Krishna Garments. The complainant has not paid his personal loan also, hence No Due Certificate has not been issued to him. However, the complainant has submitted during his arguments that he is ready to pay the balance amount, towards his personal loan account.
9. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above this complaint is accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost against the opposite party. The opposite party is directed to issue the NOC to the complainant in case he pays the outstanding loan amount in his personal account and withdraws his personal guarantee to M/s Krishna Garments.
10. The compliance with regard to the cost be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
09-01-2014
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
(Jarnail Singh)
Member
