Haryana

StateCommission

A/823/2019

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

KAILASH DHAM ETC. - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY SINGLA

18 Mar 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.823 of 2019

 

Date of Institution:04.09.2019

Date of final hearing:18.03.2024

Date of pronouncement:21.03.2024

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

Punjab National Bank, a body corporate duly constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970 having its Head Office at Plot No.4, Sector-10, Dwarka, Delhi-110075 and one of its branch office situated at Court Road, Ambala City through its Branch       Manager, Shri Ranbir Singh.

…Appellant.

Through counsel Mr.Ajay Singla, Advocate

 

Versus

 

1.      Smt. Kailash Dham, aged 61 years, wife of Shri Ashok Kumar, R/o H.No.238, Sector-1, Urban Estate, Ambala City.

….Respondent No.1.

Through counsel Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate

2.      Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Railway Road, Ambala City.

3.      Manager, Central Bank of India, DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-    110023, through Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Railway     Road, Ambala City.

….Respondents No.2 & 3.

Through counsel Mr. Ankush Gupta, Advocate

 

Present:-    Mr. Ajay Singla, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Dhruv Gupta, counsel for respondent No.1.

                   Mr. Ankush Gupta, counsel for respondents No.2 & 3.

 

First Appeal No.861 of 2019

 

Date of institution:30.09.2019

Date of final hearing:18.03.2024

Date of pronouncement:21.03.2024

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

1.      Central Bank of India, DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-    110023, through Branch Manager, Ambala City.

2.      Central Bank of India, Railway Road, Ambala City, through its Branch Manager.

…..Appellants.

Through counsel Mr. Ankush Gupta, Advocate

 

Versus

1.      Kailash Dham, W/o Shri Ashok Kumar, R/o H.No.238, Sector-1, Urban Estate, Ambala City.

….Respondent No.1.

Through counsel Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate

2.      Punjab National Bank, Court Road, Ambala City through its Branch   Manager.

3.      Punjab National Bank, Model Town, Ambala City through its Manager.

….Respondents No.2 & 3.

Through counsel Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate

 

 

Present:-    Mr. Ankush Gupta, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Dhruv Gupta, counsel for respondent No.1.

                   Mr. Ajay Singla, counsel for respondents No.2 & 3.

 

CORAM:   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
 

 

O R D E R

 

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

          Delay of 24 days in filing of First Appeal No.861 of 2019 is hereby condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.               Vide this common order above mentioned two appeals bearing F.A No.823 of 2019 and F.A. No.861 of 2019 will be disposed of as both have been preferred against the impugned order dated 01.08.2019, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (now ‘District Commission’) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant (Mrs. Kailash Dham) was allowed and the opposite parties (‘OPs’)-present appellants were directed as under:-

“Hence, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs jointly & severally, either to deposit the loan amount directly to the bank concerned or to reimburse the same to the complainant, so that she can further deposit the said amount to the bank concerned. However, it is made clear that no interest/penalty shall be charged from the complainant, as there was no fault on her part. The OPs shall pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant. The OPs shall also pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The OPs No.1 & 2 are further directed to issue clearance certificate to the complainant, with regard to the loan in question, and to remove the lien of Rs.50235/- upon saving account maintained by the complainant with the Punjab National Bank, Model Town, Ambala City. The compliance of the above said directions shall be made by the OPs within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.”

3.                Brief facts of complaint filed before learned District Commission are that the Delhi Development Authority, Delhi floated a scheme DDA Housing Scheme 10, to allot 16,000 flats in Delhi to the applicants by way of draw. The scheme remained open from 25.11.2010 to 24.12.2010 and the flats were already constructed and were ready for occupation. The complainant applied for allotment of flat under the said scheme. She applied for a draft of Rs.50,000/- to Punjab National Bank, Court Road, Ambala City i.e. OP No.1, in favour of “DDA Housing” payable at Delhi/New Delhi as per scheme and accordingly, the OP No.1 charged Rs.1720/- as advance interest on 24.12.2010 and issued the demand draft. The application and draft reached in the office of Delhi Development Authority, Delhi in time. The date of draw was fixed on 18.04.2011. It was alleged that her name was not in the list of draw of lots of successful persons. As per the “DDA Housing Scheme” Para No.10, there is a provision for refund to unsuccessful applicants, which reads as under:-

“DDA will refund the registration money through the Nodal branch as indicated in Annexure ‘B’ of the bank wherein all allottee had deposited the application form. The concerned bank shall be responsible for the dispatch of refund cheque to the unsuccessful applicants. The bank shall bear the responsibility for any loss.”

                 As per the scheme, it was the duty of the DDA to return the registration money to unsuccessful applicants/to the bank concerned, who issued the draft in favour of DDA. Thereafter, she received a letter dated 23.02.2017 from OP No.1, calling upon her to deposit Rs.50,235/-, out of the availed limit advance of Rs.50,000/- within 15 days of this notice. The OP No.1 sent two letters dated 28.04.2017 on the same subject to her. It was further alleged that to further harass her, another letter dated 28.04.2017 was sent to her calling upon her to appear before the recovery commission on 23.05.2017 for a compromise. On receipt of the letter, she visited the above said office in Model Town, Ambala City and told the concerned officer that the DDA had returned the amount to the bank and she is not responsible for return of any payment of Rs.50235/- + interest from the date of NPA. Inspite of that, she was again threatened by the OP No.1 vide letter dated 05.06.2017. Before the above said letter, the bank also put it lien on her personal bank account, which is running with OP No.1. Thereafter, complainant used RTI Online dated 06.07.2017 of DDA Delhi regarding the refund of amount, but the DDA Delhi failed to reply the same. Thereafter online appeal was filed to DDA Authority, but no action was taken. The DDA Delhi sent the reply dated 24.11.2017 and 05.12.2017 informing that the refund of Rs.50,000/- was sent to Central Bank of India on 20.04.2011 at bank Serial No.27164. The complainant again sent three letters to the OP No.3 under RTI on 11.12.2017, 15.01.2018, but the OP No.3 failed to reply the same. Inspite of refund by DDA Delhi on 24.04.2011, she was suffering unnecessarily as her saving bank account was attached upto Rs.50,235/-, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

 

4.                Upon notice, OPs have appeared before learned District Commission and submitted their separate written versions. OPs No.1 & 2 raised preliminary objections regarding cause of action and locus standi. On merits, it was submitted that the after getting the loan for the remaining amount from the OPs No.1 & 2, the complainant applied for the allotment of a flat of Delhi Development Authority and since she remained unsuccessful candidate in the allotment, therefore, she was bound to refund the loan amount alongwith interest to them. It was submitted that as per Allotment Process of DDA, the unsuccessful candidates would be refunded the amount and the amount was to be refunded to the complainant through the OP No.3 and the complainant was legally bound to deposit the amount of loan with interest to the OPs No.1 & 2. Finally, it was submitted that OPs No.1 & 2 have not committed any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                Upon notice, OPs No.3, 3(a) appeared through counsel and filed written version and raised preliminary objections regarding locus standi; time barred and bad for mis-joinder of necessary party. On merits, it is stated that OPs No.3, 3(a) had no liability towards the complainant to refund any amount. It was submitted that the OPs No.3, 3(a) had refunded the amount as per procedure to the unsuccessful applicants being the banker of DDA. It was further submitted that the OPs No.3, 3(a) remitted the amount of Rs.199.29 crore in lump-sum to Punjab National Bank on different dates, of the unsuccessful applicants, under the DDA scheme. Finally, it was submitted that there was no deficiency on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.                After hearing, learned counsel for the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint as mentioned above in para 2^nd (supra).

7.                Aggrieved from the impugned order, OPs No.1 & 2 (Punjab National Bank)-Appellant has preferred First Appeal No.823 of 2019 and OPs No.3 & 3(a) (Central Bank of India)-Appellants have preferred the First Appeal No.861 of 2019 for setting aside the impugned order passed by learned District Commission.

8.                Arguments have been advanced by Mr. Ajay Singla, learned counsel for appellant (Punjab National Bank) in First Appeal No.823 of 2019, Mr. Ankush Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant (Central Bank of India) in First Appeal No.861 of 2019 and Mr.Dhruv Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.1 (Complainant) in both the appeals.  With their kind assistance the entire records as well as original record of learned District Commission including whatever evidence have been led on behalf of the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

9.                It is an admitted fact that the respondent No.1-Smt. Kailash Dham (complainant) had applied for allotment of a flat under the DDA scheme, but she remained unsuccessful in the draw of lots. It is also an admitted fact that the DDA had to remit the registration amount to the unsuccessful applicants through appellants-OPs No.3 & 3(a) (Central Bank of India). The plea of respondent No.1 (complainant) is that being the unsuccessful candidate in the draw of lots conducting by the DDA, the amount of registration was to be credited by the appellants-OPs in her bank account, details of which had already been provided by her. However, the appellants-OPs did not credit the said amount in her bank account. As such, the appellants-OPs committed deficiency in service. The stand of the appellants-OPs No.3, 3 (a) (Central Bank of India) is that they had remitted Rs.199.29 crore to the appellants-OPs No.1 & 2 (Punjab National Bank) to refund the due amount to all the unsuccessful candidates, who applied for allotment of flat under the DDA scheme through them. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the appellants-OPs No.1 & 2 (Punjab National Bank) tried to evade their liability by saying that the amount received from the appellants-OPs No.3, 3(a) (Central Bank of India) had already been reimbursed to the unsuccessful candidates. However, neither the appellants-OPs No.3, 3(a) (Central Bank of India) have produced the list of unsuccessful candidates, for whom, they had remitted the amount Rs.199.29 crore, to the appellants-OPs No.1 & 2 (Punjab National Bank), nor the appellants-OPs No.1 & 2 (Punjab National Bank) have placed on record any document, which shows that the necessary steps in the matter were taken as far as the case of reimbursement of the respondent No.1-complainant (Smt. Kailash Dham) is concerned. Thus, it is established that on account of deficiency revolving within the area of all the present appellants-OPs (Punjab National Bank & Central Bank of India), as a result whereof, the respondent No.1-complainant (Smt. Kailash Dham) was harassed by appellants-OPs No.1 & 2 (Punjab National Bank) to repay the loan amount. The respondent No.1-complainant (Smt. Kailash Dham) would have definitely repaid the said loan amount, had the same been reimbursed by the appellants-OPs to her.

10.              Thus, learned District Commission rightly observed that there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The order dated 01.08.2019, passed by learned District Commission, Ambala is well reasoned and based on facts and is in accordance with law. Hence, the First Appeal No.823 of 2019 filed by the OPs No.1 & 2 (Punjab National Bank) and First Appeal No.861 of 2019 filed by OPs No.3 & 3(a) (Central Bank of India) are devoid of merit and both stand dismissed.

11.              The statutory amount of Rs.4,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the First Appeal No.823 of 2019 titled as “Punjab National Bank Vs.  Smt. Kailash Dham & Ors.” be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and due verification, as per rules.

12.              The original judgement be kept with appeal No.823 of 2019 and its certified copies be placed with appeal No.861 of 2019.

13.              Copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.

14.              Application(s), pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

15.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 21^st March, 2024

 

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik,

Member        

Addl. Bench-III