Haryana

Karnal

CC/263/2018

Sumer Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Bank Of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

13 Dec 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 263 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt. 04.10.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 13.12.2019

 

Sumer Chand age about 42 years son of Shri Jagiru Ram, resident of House no.9, Type III building, 3^rd floor, KCGMC, Karnal District Karnal.

 

                                                                          …….Complainant.

                                                  Versus

 

1. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Sector-12, Urban Estate, Karnal through its Manager.

2. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Ch. Devi Lal University, Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.    

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Complainant in person.

                Shri Jaspal Verma Advocate for OPs.

 

                (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that the complainant was working as Assistant, C.D.L.U. Sirsa and now posted as Dy. Superintendent, K.C.G.M.C. Karnal. The complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the OP no.2 on 01.06.2012, vide loan account no.15176775001243. The complainant has to return the said amount through 60 EMIs of Rs.6500/- and as per the norms of said loan, the said amount is to be deducted from the salary bank account of complainant, vide salary bank account no.15172041000683. It is alleged that in the last i.e. 60^th installment, the OPs bank has deducted excess amount from the salary account of complainant. Thereafter, the complainant so many times visited to the OPs and requested to issue No Dues Certificate in favour of the complainant, but OPs always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, complainant made a written complaint to the OPs on 10.07.2017 and visited the office of OPs so many times and also contacted them through mail but till today the OPs have neither given any reply of the letter nor disclosed the reason for not issuing the No Dues Certificate. On 29.08.2018 the complainant again visited the office of OP no.1 and also requested to issue No Dues Certificate regarding the loan account of complainant, but the official of the OPs refused to issue No Dues Certificate. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement without any signature of the party, which is not as per law. Order 6 Rule 14 of CPC reads as under:-

Pleading to be signed- Every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any)

Provided that where a party pleading, by reason of absence or for other good cause, unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly authorized by him to sign the same or to sue or defect on his behalf.

In view of order 6 Rule 14 of CPC every pleading shall be signed by the parties but in the present case, written version filed by the learned counsel of OP no.1 has not been signed by the party, thus same cannot be considered.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C24 and closed the evidence 11.06.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 30.09.2019.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and have gone through the evidence available on file carefully.

6.             The case of the complainant is that he obtained a personal loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the OP no.2 on 01.06.2012, vide loan account no.15176775001243. The complainant is to return the said amount through 60 EMIs of Rs.6500/- and as per the norms of said loan, the said amount is to be deducted from the salary bank account of complainant, vide salary bank account no.15172041000683. Thereafter, the complainant so many times visited the OPs and requested to issue No Dues Certificate in favour of the complainant, but OPs always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, complainant made a written complaint to the OPs on 10.07.2017 and visited the office of OPs so many times and also contacted them through mail but till today the OPs have neither given any reply of the letter nor disclosed the reason for not issuing the No Dues Certificate.

7.             As per the version of the complainant that he had taken a loan from the OPs and he repaid all the loan amount, but some installment were paid by the complainant on expiry date of the installments, due to unavoidable circumstances because loan amount is to be deducted from the salary account and sometimes salary has been deposited late by the Government. There is no fault on the part of the complainant.  As per detail of salary bank account of complainant as Ex.C1 to Ex.C23, loan amount has been deducted from the salary account of the complainant. Most of the installment has been deducted well in time and some installment has not been deducted due to insufficient fund, but same were also deducted when the salary of the complainant credited in his account. The OPs filed the written version but the same has not signed by the OPs. As per order 6 Rule 14 of CPC, the pleadings filed by the OPs cannot be taken into consideration. Hence the version of the complainant and evidence produced by the complainant is unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Hence, it is well proved that the service of OPs amount to deficiency in service.

8.             Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to issue the NOC to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. However, if any amount of loan is outstanding against the complainant, OPs may charged the same without any penalty. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated: 13.12.2019

                                                                        President,

                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                            Redressal Forum, Karnal

 

 

           (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                    Member             Member