Punjab

Faridkot

CC/14/162

Vir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Primary Agriculture Development Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Satpal Goyal

13 Mar 2015

ORDER

       DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :   162

Date of Institution :  21.11.2014

Date of Decision :   12.03.2015

 

Vir Singh, s/o Bagh Singh s/o Hira Singh r/o Village Lambwali, Tehsil Jaitu, DistrictFaridkot.                                                                  .....Complainant

Versus

1. Primary Agriculture Development Bank, Branch Jaitu, District Faridkot through Manager.

2. Punjab State Cooperative Development Primary Bank Ltd. Shop cum Office No. 53/54, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through Managing Director.

                                                                               ....Opposite Parties(Ops)

    

   Complaint under Section 12 of the

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    

   Quorum:     Sh. Ashwani Kumar Mehta, President,

   Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

   Sh P Singla, Member.

   Present:       Sh Satpal Goyal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

    Sh B S Brar, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

    OP-2 Ex Parte.

    

   (A K Mehta, President)

3. Complainant Vir Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Primary Agriculture Development Bank etc/ Opposite Parties (Ops) for not issuing required redemption certificate to the complainant after clearance of total loan amount and for seeking directions to Ops to pay Rs 20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental tension and Rs 5000/- as litigation expenses.

4. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is a farmer and he and his brother took a loan of Rs 40,000/-from Ops under account number 221105; that complainant returned in instalments near about Rs 40,000/- and remaining amount was exempted to the complainant under the Government Scheme and Loan Relief Plan 2008 for small farmers and in this regard, OP-1 issued a letter dt 10.07.2008; that complainant approached concerned Patwari of the Revenue Department, but the Patwari asked him to bring redemption certificate from the Bank and only then, he would enter the mutation and thereafter, complainant approached Ops at Jaitu, but they harassed the complainant and finally refused to provide the redemption certificate; that complainant approached OP-1 personally and through legal notice dt 6.10.2010 and also through counsel on 27.10.2014, but OP-1 and OP-2 did not issue the required redemption certificate to the complainant; that complainant made many requests to Ops to consider his legal and lawful claim but OP-1 flatly refused toprovide the redemption certificate, which amounts to deficiency in service and it has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs 20,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs 5000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the complaint was filed.

5. The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 26.11.2014, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

6. On receipt of the notice, the opposite party no. 1 filed written statement contesting the complaint on the ground that complainant returned only Rs 33,600/- and complainant was granted ‘Muafi’ of Rs 36,227/- in year 2008 under the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, which was credited in the account of complainant and still principal amount of Rs 7,080/-from 28.06.2008 and interest to the tune of Rs 23,572/- is still due and payable up to 31.03.2014 and now further interest is also payable upto date on principal amount of Rs 7,080/- and unless complainant pays the due amount, the redemption certificate cannot be issued by Opposite Party; that notice dt 27.10.2014 was received from complainant, which was duly replied by OP on 26.11.2014; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite parties; that all other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite parties. Notice was issued to OP-2 through RC on 4.12.2014 and OP-2 was declared to have been duly served through RC containing notice and copy of complaint and as none appeared in the Forum on behalf of OP-2 on the date fixed, therefore, OP-2 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 14.01.2015.

   5                                                                 Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-4 and then, closed the evidence.

   6.                                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sh Surjan Singh, Field Officer, PADB, Jaitu as Ex. OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-4 and then, closed the evidence.

   7                                               We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

   8.                                             The ld Counsel for complainant contended that complainant obtained loan from the OP Bank and complainant paid part of the loan to the OP Bank and remaining amount was exempted (Muafi) by the Government under a scheme of Loan Relief Plan 2008 for small farmers and OP Bank also wrote a letter dt 10.07.2008 to the complainant intimating that the remaining due amount has been exempted and as such, nothing was due from the complainant to the OP Bank and complainant is entitled to claim ‘No Due Certificate’ and also Redemption Certificate for redeeming the land of the complainant but OP Bank failed to give the Redemption Certificate inspite of repeated requests and visits which shows deficiency in service on the part of Ops and this conduct of the OP has caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant for which, complainant is entitled to compensation and litigation expenses as mentioned in the complaint and as such, complaint is required to be allowed and OP Bank is required to be directed to issue Redemption Certificate and for payment of compensation and litigation expenses.

   9                                     The ld counsel for Ops contended that complainant and his brother availed a loan from the OP Bank but complainant has not cleared the total due amount to the OP Bank and even after adjustment of exemption (Muafi) given by the State Government, amount of Rs 7,080/- is due on account of principal amount and Rs 16,515/-on account of interest after adjustment of Muafi of Rs 36,227/- i.e Rs 24,920/-as principal loan and Rs 11,307/- as interest. He contended that as the complainant has not cleared his entire loan, therefore, clearance certificate or Redemption Certificate could not be issued to the complainant. He contended that letter dt 10.07.2008 does not show that total due amount has been adjusted, rather it only shows the amount which was adjusted from the overdue amount which the complainant had not paid till then. He contended that even in letter dt 10.07.2008, it is mentioned that amount of Rs 35,094/- has not been paid till 29.02.2008 and Muafi of Rs 35,094/-was given out of overdue amount till 29.02.2008. He contended that Muafi was given only from overdue amount and not from total amount due from the complainant and as such, complaint has been falsely filed against the Ops and is liable to be dismissed with special costs.

   10                                       After going through the record of the case and evidence and documents produced on the file by the parties, this Forum does not find force in the contentions of the ld counsel for complainant. Complainant has only relied upon the letter issued by the OP-Bank dated 10.07.2008, copy of which is proved as Ex C-4. Even this letter shows that the amount of Rs 35,094/-was not paid by the complainant till 31.12.2007 and the same was also not paid by the complainant till 29.02.2008 and Muafi was also given for Rs 35,094/- which shows that Muafi was only given out of overdue amount and not from the total due amount from the loanee. Even Ops have filed statements showing the overdue amount not paid till 29.02.2008 and the amount which was exempted and statement Ex OP-2 shows that amount of Rs 36,227/-, which was overdue till 29.02.2008 was exempted to the complainant. Statement of account Ex OP-3 shows that  the amount of Rs 32,000/-was due as principal loan from the complainant on 3.01.2008 and Muafi of Rs 24,920/-from principal loan was given to the complainant and as such amount of Rs 7,080/-was due from the complainant on account of principal loan. Likewise, statement Ex OP-4 shows that amount of Rs 27,822/- was due as interest from the complainant till 31.03.2008 and Muafi of Rs 11,307/- was given to the complainant out of interest on 28.06.2008 and amount of Rs 16,515/-was due on account of interest on 28.06.2008. This  statement further shows that presently, amount of Rs 23,572/-is due from the complainant on account of interest on 31.03.2014. As such, complainant has not cleared his total loan to the OP Bank and as such, is not entitled to Redemption Certificate or Clearance Certificate.

   11                                                 In the light of above discussion, complainant fails to prove his case on file and as such, complaint is hereby dismissed. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

   Announced in open Forum:

   Dated: 12.03.2015

   Member                Member      President     (Parampal Kaur) (P Singla)        (A K Mehta)