Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/685/2016

Ajitpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Punjab and Sind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Sapehia

01 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/685/2016
Date of Institution	:	24/08/2016
Date of Decision	:	01/05/2018

 

1.     Ajitpal Singh, aged 63 years r/o House No.61/1, Badal Colony, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

2.     Ms. Nancy Natt, aged 33 years d/o Ajitpal Singh Natt, r/o House No.61/1, Badal Colony, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

… Complainants

V E R S U S

1.     M/s Punjab and Sind Bank, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

2.     The General Manager, (Personnel) Punjab and Sind Bank, New Delhi.

3.     The AGM/Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                 

                                 

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ajay Sapehia, Counsel for complainants
	:	Sh. Dipinder Singh, Counsel for OPs.

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Allegations, in brief, are complainant No.1 is ex-staff of OP Bank and complainant No.2 is his daughter.  In the year 2012, complainant No.2 was allotted an apartment by GMADA, Mohali and for making the payment, the complainants obtained loan of Rs.20.00 lakhs from the OP-bank. After sanction of loan, OPs had released Rs.11.00 lakhs only and the balance Rs.9.00 lakhs was retained, which was to be released during the construction of apartment, but, was never released. GMADA had asked for payment of the amount of Rs.9.00 lakhs, but, the same was not released and thereafter the allotment was cancelled by GMADA. It is also the case, thereafter the housing loan was converted into clean loan and interest rate was increased from 10.75% to 15%.  Even the amount is being illegally deducted from the pension account of complainant No.1. Hence, on these averments prayer is made to direct the OPs to pay Rs.2,88,723.89 alongwith interest, compensation and litigation costs etc.
2.         OPs in their written reply averred that the remaining amount of Rs.9.00 lakhs was not released to the complainants as they had failed to show from where they will make the payment of the remaining amount which was demanded by GMADA i.e. Rs.45,70,917/-. It is the case, initial amount of Rs.8,45,830/- had been refunded in accordance with the conditions of letter of intent, thereafter, the cancellation of the plot was done.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4.         We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.  After appraisal of the record, the following findings are recorded :-
5.         A perusal of the letter dated 5.3.2015 (Annexure R-4) issued by the Estate Officer, GMADA shows a sum of Rs.45,70,917/- was outstanding as on 27.2.2015 on account of pending installments of penalty imposed thereon. Complainant No.2 was directed to deposit this amount within 30 days and in case the amount was not deposited, no further extension beyond that period was to be allowed.  It was also forewarned, in case of non-deposit of the amount within time, action for the cancellation of LOI and the refund of the amount would be taken.  This document shows, before the required Type II was handed over to complainant No.2, a sum of Rs.45,70,917/- was to be deposited by the complainant.  It was on account of this demand notice, the bank had insisted upon the complainants to let them know from where they will make the payment of Rs.36,70,917/- even after release of Rs.9.00 lakhs. This was so required to test the bonafides of the complainants.
6.         A perusal of the record further shows thereafter on non-payment of this amount, cancelation of the apartment was done by GMADA.  Under these circumstances, merely asking for other sources to meet with the demand does not in any way tantamount to deficiency in service. It is also the admitted fact, cancellation of the apartment was done by the GMADA and thereafter they had also refunded the deposited amount as per codal formalities.  Therefore, it cannot be said that the original rate of interest was to be charged.  Now in this situation, due to inability of complainants to deposit the remaining amount of installment with GMADA, cancellation of the house was done. They were to ensure the remaining payment i.e. over and above Rs.20.00 lakhs the original amount sanctioned.  Keeping in view all the pros and cons, it is not a case of unfair trade practice or deficiency in service as complainant No.2 herself was defaulter. Accordingly, a part of the compliant is dismissed. 
7.         However, it is also the case, complainant No.1 is senior citizen, a retired employee and is a pensioner and the installment of the loan amount is also being deducted from his pension account.  Counsel for the complainants had relied upon the case titled as Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr., 2009 AIR (SC) 930 and relevant headnote of the same is reproduced as under :-

                “Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 60 (1)(g) – Execution Proceedings – Attachment of retiral benefits – Amount of pension and gratuity converted into Fixed Deposits – They did not lose their character and continued to be covered by proviso (g) to Section 60 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code – Same could not be attached under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code.”

Their Lordships held that even in execution proceedings, the retiral benefits and the amount of pension and gratuity converted into a fixed deposit cannot be attached. The complaint to this extent is allowed.  The OPs shall ensure that from the pension account of complainant No.1, the amount of loan installment is not deducted as these are the living expense given by the employer to the employee to lead his post retiral life. 

8.         In view of the above discussion, the instant consumer complaint is disposed of in the above terms.  The parties are left to bear their own costs.
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
01/05/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President