Delhi

New Delhi

CC/665/2012

Sugandh Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Punjab National Bank & Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

05 Sep 2019

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.C.C./665/2012                                        Dated:

In the matter of:

Sugandh Gupta,

S/o Sh. Pradeep Kumar Gupta,

R/o 258, Khazoori Darwaja-2,

Parikshit Garh-250 406,

District Meerut, UP.

               …… Complainant

Versus

1. Assistant General Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Retail Assets Branch,

A-9, Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001.

 

2.  Branch Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

            Parikshit Garh-250 406,

           District Meerut, UP.

 

3. Chief Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Customer Service Centre,

Head Office at 5, Sansad Marg,

New Delhi-110001.

 

                ……. Opposite parties

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

ORDER

       

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under

section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The gist of the complaint is that the complainant applied for the admission in full time PG Programme in Planning and Entrepreneurship for the year 2010-12 IIPM, Delhi.  The complainant deposited the retention fee of Rs.25,000/- in favour of IIPM, Delhi. The total expenses incurred upon the course was Rs.7,12,000/- and as such the complainant was advised by the official of IIPM, Delhi  to approach the  OP for the educational loan.  Believing on the version of the official of IIPM, the complainant applied for a educational loan for a sum of Rs.4 lacs on 16.7.2010. The OP-1 informed the complainant by way of letter dt.17.10.2010 to approach OP-2 for educational loan.  The complainant approached OP-2 who further advised him to approach Delhi Branch of OP for educational loan as the Institute is situated at Delhi.  On 30.8.2010, OP-3 neither allotted the educational loan nor had rejected the application.  Due to inordinate delay on the part of OPs in non-sanctioning the educational loan, the retention money of Rs.25,000/- was forfeited by the authorities of IIPM, Delhi. The non-sanctioning by OPs jeopardise the career of the complainant for which he is entitled for the damages to the tune of Rs.25 lacs. The complainant in its prayer clause has claimed refund of Rs.25,000/-.  Although the complainant at Para-19 of the complaint had restricted her claim to the tune of Rs.20 lacs and as such in the prayer clause he had sought following relief:

1. An order thereby directing the OPs jointly or severally to pay a sum of Rs.20 lacs as compensation for mental tension, harassment, pain, agony damages as well as the loss of earning for a period of 24 months and also for forfeiture of Rs.25,000/- due to non sanctioning of loan suffered by the complainant and also for running and jeopardizing the career of the complainant.

 

2. Any other or further order which this Forum deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the complainant.

 

2.     Notices were sent to the OPs but none appeared on behalf of OPs, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte by our predecessor Bench vide its order dated 3.1.2013.   Against this order, an appeal was preferred by the OPs, in which the hon’ble State Commission vide its order dated 9.7.2013 accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned ex-parte order.

 

3.     Complaint has been contested by all the OPs.  In its written statement they denied any deficiency in service on their part.  It is stated on behalf of OP-1 & 3 that  vide letter dt. 17.7.2010, they already informed to the complainant that as per extent bank guidelines, the education loan can be sanctioned from the Branch nearest to the place of residence of parents and only parents guardian of the student borrower can be co-obligator  and further requested him to approach the residence branch for the loan in question, as such, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as claimed qua OP-1 & 3.

 

4.     It is stated on behalf of OP-2 that he received the loan application on 4.10.2010 and immediately a letter was sent to the complainant to come along with the original documents but the complainant never turned up to fulfil the formalities, hence, it was presumed that he was not interested in availing the loan in question.  And prayed for dismissal of the complaint being false and frivolous.

 

5.     Both the parties have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavits.

6.     We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submission made on behalf of parties. 

7.     Perusal of the record shows that as per the complainant, he approached OP-2(Residence Branch) on 26.7.2010 along with an application form and copy of the documents in question for getting the educational loan, however, the application form does not bear the signature as well as the official seal of receipt by OP bank.  On the other hand, it is stated on behalf of OP-2 that he received the application for loan from the complainant on 4.10.2010 that too without any document and as such OP bank wrote a letter to the complainant asking him to furnish the relevant documents within 15 days, failing which, it would be deemed that the complainant is not interested in availing the loan.  However, OP-2 also failed to place on record the letter dt. 4.10.2010 as well as the copy of letter sent by him to the complainant.  All the documents placed on record by the parties do not clarify whether the complainant approached OP-2 for educational loan and against his request OP-2 had denied the same. It is very difficult for us to come to the conclusion that that the OP bank had denied the educational loan leading to jeopardizing the career of the complainant, the same can be verified by the adducing the evidence which is not possible in the present summary proceedings.  All the issues referred herein required elaborate evidence which cannot be dealt in summary proceedings by the District Fora.

8.     It is apparent that the complainant is asking for the relief which require lengthy evidence and cross-examination.  The cross-examination of witness is life blood of legal system.  The trustworthiness of a witness can only be examined in cross-examination.  The Civil Court not being a summary trial court can easily go the root of every problem.  Admittedly, the Consumer Forum deals with the complaint in a summary proceeding, where cases involve a great deal of evidence, the same cannot be adjudicated upon by the Forum & for which the party concerned has to approach the civil court where elaborate procedure including recording of evidence is followed.

9.     In case titled Punjab Lloyd Ltd. Vs Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 301, it was held that the complicated question of law should be decided by the regular court. It further held that the decisive test in not the complicated nature of question of fact and law arising for decision. In another case titled LIC & Ors. Vs Surinder Kaur & Ors. Civil Appeal No.5334 or 2006 (Arising or of SLP (c) No.17866 of 2005) decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 01.12.2006, it has been held that complex question of facts cannot be decided by the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act and such arises can be subject matter of regular Civil Court.

10.    In view of the above, we are inclined to hold that that the present complaint involves complicated questions of facts as well as law regarding the alleged loss in question.  The issues raised in the present complaint required elaborate oral and documentary evidence and the examination of the witnesses for the proper disposal of the matter.  The proper forum for adjudication of the present complaint is Civil Court.  Consumer Protection Act being the special Act where only summary proceedings are taken up and as such the adjudication of the present complaint is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum, hence the present complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court as per law. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, complainant can take advantage of the decision rendered in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institution 1995 (3) SCC 583.  

A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.  Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 05/09/2019.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                                      (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                           (H M VYAS)

                                            MEMBER                                                         MEMBER