Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/76

Umesh Kirpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Rohit Thapar

09 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 76 dated 12.02.2021.                                                Date of decision:09.12.2023.

Umesh Kirpal son of Late Shri Om Parkash Kirpal, resident of 132, Parkash Colony, Barewal Road, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana through his attorney Saurabh Kirpal son of Shri Rakesh Kirpal, resident of 132, Parkash Colony, Barewal Road, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank, SCO 121, 3^rd Floor, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Manager.                                                                                                                                                                       …..Opposite Party

Complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH.JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS.MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Rohit Thapar, Advocate

For OP                           :         Sh. Rahul Rajput, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                           The complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission by filing the present complaint and raised a consumer dispute with regard to non-issuance of complete statement of accounts, NOC of two accounts and also to return the security documents etc. besides paying compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice was issued to the opposite parties and on 09.06.2021 Sh. Rahul Rajput, Advocate filed memo of appearance on behalf of opposite parties and on 16.08.2021, filed regular power of attorney on behalf of the opposite parties along with written statement as well as affidavit and assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability; suppression of material facts etc. The opposite parties denied the allegations levelled in the complaint by stating that the securities of the complainant were retained due to the amount pending towards the complainant. The OP denied any deficiency in service on its part  and also prayed for dismissal of the complaint

3.                The parties have already led their evidence by tendering their respective affidavits and documents and the case was fixed for arguments.

4.                On 29.11.2023, Sh.Rajit Gupta, Associate Vice President in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana has appeared in person along with counsel and suffered statement that he undertakes to return the mortgaged documents to the complainant within 7 days from today subject to signatures of borrowers and mortgagers on the requisite documents. Further, he got recorded his statement that he will further arrange NOC for the loan which was taken by the complainant. Pursuant to the said statements, counsel for the complainant has also got recorded his statement that the complainant will facilitate the signatures of the borrowers and mortgagers on the requisite documents without prejudice to my right. Further, he has prayed that mother of his client is a senior citizen, as such, her signatures be taken from home and further his client will arrange GPA executed by Monika Kirpal wife of Umesh Kirpal for the release of property where she is mortgaged. The case was adjourned for 08.12.2023.

                   On 08.12.2023, complainant Sh. Rohit Thapar, Advocate counsel for the complainant suffered statement that he had received the documents from the bank regarding property owned by Ms. Santosh Kumari except the property owned by Savita Kirpal and Monika Kirpal because they are residing abroad and as and when they will return back to India, they will apply the documents with the bank. The complainant further stated to withdraw the present complaint.

5.                In view of the aforesaid statement of the counsel for the complainant, it seems that the partial settlement has been arrived at between the parties by receiving the documents regarding one property. However, regarding other property of Savita Kirpal and Monika Kirpal, the OP will hand over the documents to them as and when they will return back to India and will apply for return of the documents. As such, the present complaint stands dismissed as withdrawn. The parties to remain abide by their respective statements.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs.

6.                File be indexed and consigned to record room. 

 

(Monika Bhagat)           (Jaswinder Singh)         (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                       Member                         President   

National Lok Adalat    National Lok Adalat      Consumer Commission                                                                                     cum Chairman, National                                                                          Lok   Adalat       

Announced in Open Commission                                            Dated:09.12.2023.

Gobind Ram.