A.K. Mehta, President

1        Complainant M/s.Punjab Wooden Industries through its proprietor Ajit Singh has filed the present complaint under section  12 sand 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein-after called as ‘the Act’) against Punjab Financial Corporation through its General Manager, having its Head Office at 95-98, Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh (herein-after called as ‘Opposite Party-Corporation’) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence with further prayer to direct the Opposite Party-Corporation to re-imburse and pay Rs.1,61,792/- received in excess over due and  Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of  harassment and mental agony, etc and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant availed loan of Rs.1,20,000/- on 15.3.1993 for its business purpose from Opposite Party-Corporation and the complainant had returned/ repaid the amount of loan alongwith interest to Opposite Party-Corporation through different cheques and demand drafts amounting to Rs.1,69,287/-, but the Opposite Party-Corporation still demanded loan amount from the complainant after which the complainant approached the government and the government passed  a scheme for writing off the loan of the complainant by which only the principal amount was to be returned by the complainant and the interest accrued on it was to be borne by Punjab Government as per policy passed by the government and the interest to be charged was @6% per annum as simple rate of interest; that the Opposite Party-Corporation sent a letter to the complainant to deposit Rs.1,10,305/- so as to avail the scheme of Punjab Government regarding writing off the loan and told the complainant that if he does not pay the same to Opposite Party-Corporation, the case of the complainant will not be covered under the scheme of the government and it was promised that this amount will be reimbursed to the complainant after the complainant deposits the said amount and the complainant being afraid of the letter and being afraid that he would not be considered under the scheme of the Punjab Government, deposited a sum of Rs.1,10,305/- vide two installments and also paid Rs.100/- and Rs.2100/- as expenses to it; that the complainant paid the amount through cash and also through his saving bank account at Goindwal Sahib and paid the said amount inspite of the fact that the complainant had already paid Rs.1,20,000/- i.e. principal amount to Opposite Party-Corporation, but on repeated demands and promises of the Opposite Party-Corporation, the complainant paid the above said amount to Opposite Party-Corporation; that the Opposite Party-Corporation promised to return the excessive amount of Rs.1,61,792/- received by it from the complainant, but till date, no such reimbursement has been made by the Opposite Party-Corporation to the complainant; that the complainant in addition to the above mentioned amount of Rs.1,10,305/- also paid interest previously through installments of the loan and Opposite Party-Corporation had also sent letter to the complainant in the year 2015 admitting that nothing is due towards the complainant and the complainant will be reimbursed if any amount is due towards it; that the complainant visited Opposite Party-Corporation and requested it many times to make the reimbursement of Rs.1,61,792/-, but Opposite Party-Corporation flatly refused to do so and it amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party-Corporation which caused harassment, mental agony to the complainant.   Hence the complaint was filed.          

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was sent to Opposite Party-Corporation. Opposite Party-Corporation appeared through counsel and filed written reply contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to  the Forum with clean hands and has filed the complaint on the basis of vague and indefinite allegations only to harass the Opposite Party-Corporation and to grab the amount illegally and with malafide intentions; that actually the complainant had availed loan facility in the year 1987 from Opposite Party-Corporation and said loan was followed by additional loan for setting up industrial unit at Goindwal Sahib, but the complainant did not repay the loan amount, and as per  agreed terms  and conditions, the complainant became a chronic defaulter and outstanding loan amount of the complainant surged to Rs.7.81 lacs in account No.1 and Rs.27.43 lacs in account No.2, but in order to give relief to the borrowers/ industrialists  of Goindwal Sahib, Punjab Government  issued notification  dated 29.11.2011 announcing One time Settlement Policy for the units located at Industrial Complex, Goindwal Sahib to the effect that “In the cases of industrialists of Goindwal Sahib Industrial Complex,  penal interest and compound interest is waived and simple interest @ 6%  is to be charged from beginning and simple interest is to be recovered from the allottees in three installments. Installments and others issues related to this, shall be decided by the Board of Directors of the Corporation.”  Thereafter, vide another  notification dated 23.12.2011 in continuation of previous notification, Punjab Government further decided that “After considering the memorandum dated 16.12.2001 of department of Industry & Commerce, proposal given in its para No.2.0 was considered. In the last decision, the Council of Ministers had given decision regarding industrial units at Focal Point, Goindwal Sahib that after recovering principal and 6% interest, the loan accounts may be closed. After reconsidering the said decision, it was decided that the said units shall pay principal only and 6% interest at simple rate shall be paid out of Punjab Government budget.”  Accordingly, the Board of Directors  of Punjab Financial Corporation in its meeting held on 1.2.2012  after considering the aforesaid notification adopted the said OTS policy and among other terms and conditions of settlement also formulated the criteria for calculation of the settlement amount  as under:-

“.. .. 3. Settlement Amount: Outstanding principal, as on the date of settlement plus expenses, if any. The amount already adjusted towards interest is not to be re-adjusted towards principal by working out the settlement amount and simple interest recoverable from State Government.”;

that in view of the aforesaid notification dated 20.12.2011 and 23.12.2011 followed by decision of Board of Directors  dated 1.2.2012 a sum of Rs.1,39,000/- was received by the Opposite Party-Corporation from State Government being 6% simple interest and all industrialists at Goindwal Sahib Industrial Complex including the complainant were offered  to settle their loan accounts under the aforesaid policy on payment of principal + expenses; that the complainant also responded to the same  and on his request followed by deposit of the earnest money of Rs.54,500/- by the complainant on 27.4.2012, the settlement committee of the Opposite Party-Corporation in its meeting held on 23.5.2012 settled the loan account of the complainant for Rs.1,10,305/- and expenses if any, against the outstanding of Rs.27,43,210/- with further interest from 1.2.2012 thus waiving an amount of Rs.24,95,310/-; that the said meeting was also attended by the complainant personally and said decision was duly conveyed to the complainant vide letter No. PFC/ADO/2012-13/41 dated 16.6.2012 against receipt and the complainant deposited the said One time Settlement amount without raising any objection either in the Settlement Committee meeting or thereafter and after having availed the said OTS facility and waiver of huge amount, has filed the present complaint which is the result of an afterthought and concoctions; that the complainant is not a consumer qua the replying Opposite Party as defined under Consumer Protection Act because the complainant has not purchased any goods or services against consideration from the Opposite Party-Corporation, but is a borrower of the Opposite Party-Corporation  and is not covered under the definition of consumer and secondly, since the loan account has already been adjusted under One time Settlement Policy  and ‘No Due Certificate’ has been issued to the complainant, therefore, the relationship of consumer if  at all existed, has come to an  end and as such, the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable. On merits, the complaint has also been contested on the similar lines and pleas taken in the preliminary objections and it was asserted that the complainant remained chronic defaulter of the Opposite Party-Corporation and it was denied that the complainant repaid the amount alongwith interest by paying Rs.1,69,287/- and no details of the alleged amount of Rs.1,69,287/- deposited by the complainant has been submitted by the complainant and it shows that the allegations made by the complainant are vague and indefinite; that the complainant was defaulter of the Opposite Party-Corporation and did not pay the principal  and interest accrued from time to time as per the agreed terms and conditions, therefore, the amount paid if any, was adjusted towards interest in default as per the loan documents and policy of the Opposite Party-Corporation and as stated, the outstanding amount of Rs.27,43,210/- with future interest from 1.2.2012 was due  in the loan account of the complainant at the time of settlement of the loan account and it was  decided by the Board of Directors  of the Opposite Party-Corporation in its meeting held on 1.2.2012 defining the settlement amount as under:- 

“.. .. 3. Settlement Amount: Outstanding principal, as on the date of settlement plus expenses, if any. The amount already adjusted towards interest is not to be re-adjusted towards principal by working out the settlement amount and simple interest recoverable from State Government.”;

And as such,  in view of the One time Settlement Policy  of the State Government followed by decision by the competent authority i.e. Board of Directors  of the Opposite Party-Corporation, the principal alongwith expenses were claimed from the complainant which the complainant paid without raising any objection either at the time of settlement of the loan account or thereafter and obtained No Due Certificate from the Opposite Party-Corporation. It was asserted that the letter dated 16.6.2012 conveying the settlement amount of Rs.1,10,305/- was rightly issued by the Opposite Party-Corporation to the complainant as decided by the Settlement Committee on 23.5.2012 which  was also attended by the complainant himself and the copy of the said decision was received by the complainant on 19.6.2012 against his  signatures and as such, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant at this stage that said amount was wrongly claimed from the complainant and it was denied if the amount of settlement was deposited by the complainant under any fear as alleged and details of the alleged amount of Rs.1,20,000/- deposited by the complainant has not been given and it shows that the allegations are vague and indefinite. It was denied if the Opposite Party-Corporation promised the complainant to return the alleged excessive amount of Rs.1,61,792/- because no such promise was ever made by Opposite Party-Corporation nor the complainant is entitled to the alleged amount and interest if any, adjusted in the loan account which was rightly recovered as per the loan documents executed by the complainant.  All other allegations mentioned in the complaint were also denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.      

4        Sufficient opportunities were granted to the parties to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex. C1 and copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and  closed evidence and thereafter ld. counsel for Opposite Party-Corporation tendered affidavit of Sh.Urmil Singh Ex.OP1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2 to ex.OP5 and   closed the evidence.

5        We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, perused the written arguments filed by the Opposite Party-Corporation  and also gone through the evidence and documents produced by parties.

6.       Ld.counsel for the complainant argued the  complaint  on the same lines as taken in the complaint and it is contended that the complainant took loan of Rs.1,20,000/- from the Opposite Party-Corporation as is clear from the copy of statement of the bank Ex.C6. He also contended that Punjab Government issued letter dated 15.11.2011 Ex.C2 defining the concessions given by Punjab Government  in the loan account of borrowers of Industrialists situated at Goindwal Sahib and proved the notification dated 29.11.2011 issued on 20.12.2011 Ex.C3. He contended that vide government order dated 23.12.2011 Ex.C4, only principal amount was to be returned by the borrowers while interest @ 6% was to be paid by Punjab Government. He contended that Opposite Party-Corporation admitted the payment of Rs.54,500/- by the complainant in letter Ex.C7 dated 16.6.2012 in which it was asked from the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.55,805/-. He contended that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.1,10,305/- under the Settlement Policy and as such, the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.1,61,792/- which he deposited in excess over due amount and is also entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses as mentioned in the complaint.

7.       Ld.counsel for Opposite Party-Corporation also argued the complaint on the same line as taken in the written version and contended that the loan was taken by the complainant in the year 1987 and not in 1993 as alleged in the complaint, though it was admitted that for the rehabilitation of the industrial units situated at Goindwal Sahib, the Punjab Government  formulated a scheme vide which the borrowers were only to pay the principal amount while the interest @ 6% was to be borne by the Punjab Government  and Opposite Party-Corporation was also given the right to formulate the policy for One time Settlement Policy as decided by Punjab Government. It was contended that the Opposite Party-Corporation formulated the formula for One time Settlement Policy and defined the settlement amount as outstanding principal amount on the date of settlement plus expenses, if any, and it was decided under the policy that the amount already adjusted towards interest is not to be re-adjusted towards principal for working out the settlement amount. He contended that amount of more than Rs.27 lacs was due from the complainant, but Opposite Party-Corporation decided the settlement amount due from the complainant as only Rs.1,10,305/- and this decision was taken in the presence of the complainant and he agreed to it and the decision was also conveyed to him and he deposited the amount voluntarily under the said settlement policy. It was contended that no excess amount has been obtained from the complainant nor any promise was made with the complainant for the refund of any alleged excess amount and the complaint is afterthought and is false and is liable to be dismissed with special costs.

8.       The disbursement of the loan to the complainant by Opposite Party-Corporation is admitted fact in this case. However, it is the contention of the complainant that he availed only the loan of Rs.1,20,000/- in the year 1993 and paid Rs.1,69,287/- including the interest and as such, no amount was due from the complainant. Whereas the contention of the Opposite Party-Corporation is that the complainant availed loan facility in the year 1987 and thereafter also availed additional loan for his unit at Goindwal Sahib and as such, an amount of Rs.7,81,000/- was due from the complainant in Account No.1 and Rs.27.43 lacs was due in Account No.2. The complainant has not filed the complete account statement, but has produced only part of the account statement Ex.C6 which is from 15.4.1993 to 16.12.1999. Initial amount of loan as depicted in the statement Ex.C6 on 15.4.1993 is Rs.1,20,023.50 paisa which shows that account statement is continuous statement, otherwise the figures should be round figure of Rs.1,20,000/- as contended by the complainant in the complaint. As such, the complainant has not proved the correct and complete loan statement in order to show that he availed only loan of Rs.1,20,000/- and has returned the same as contended by the complainant in the complaint and rather excess amount was deposited by him. Otherwise, it is the specific case of the complainant that he has already deposited principal amount with Opposite Party-Corporation and the amount of Rs.1,10,305/- deposited by the complainant with Opposite Party-Corporation, was on the assurance and promise of the Opposite Party-Corporation that this amount would be reimbursed to the complainant, but no such evidence has been produced on the file. The complainant has not produced any letter showing that the Opposite Party-Corporation assured and promised the complainant to refund the deposited amount if any, under the settlement scheme or deposited by the complainant previously. Rather the settlement of the loan was made in the presence of the complainant/ representative and thereafter, letter Ex.C7 dated 16.6.2012 was issued to the complainant specifying the terms of the settlement of the loan and the said letter was received by the complainant on 19.6.2012, but never challenged the same till the filing of this complaint after 4 years. Rather the complainant gave a representation to Opposite Party-Corporation on 27.12.2014 and Opposite Party-Corporation issued letter Ex.C5 dated 25/26-2-2015 justifying the receipt of money by it and contending that no excess amount was received from the complainant and the amount was settled by the Settlement Committee in the presence of the representative of the complainant and said representative also gave consent to the said settlement formula and also agreed to withdraw  all legal cases, if any, filed against Opposite Party-Corporation. As such, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant that the Opposite Party-Corporation received the excess amount under the settlement formula and also promised to reimburse the same to the complainant because the complainant has not produced any evidence in this regard which the complainant is supposed to possess if any such letter or assurance or promise was given by Opposite Party-Corporation to the complainant, rather the complainant filed the request Ex.C10 dated 27.4.2012 to the Opposite Party-Corporation and deposited Rs.54,500/- as earnest money for initiating process of settlement of his loan account by Opposite Party-Corporation which shows that the complainant has deposited the amount voluntarily and for settlement of his account and no pressure or assurance or promise was given by Opposite Party-Corporation to the complainant as alleged by the complainant. Otherwise also, the complainant has also produced the statement of account issued by Opposite Party-Corporation which shows that total amount outstanding from the complainant under A & B account was Rs.2,83,881/- and it shows that even in the year 2002, the amount was due from the complainant and the complainant had not paid the total outstanding amount under the loan account as alleged by it. Moreover, the complainant has not produced any document on the file showing that he paid any amount towards principal, rather the statement produced by the complainant on file also shows that mostly the amount was deposited by the complainant in his loan account as interest and the statement also shows that the complainant deposited the cheques or demand drafts in his loan account, but there is no evidence on the file to show that these amounts have been deposited towards principal or interest. Otherwise, as per the policy formulated by Opposite Party-Corporation that if any amount is deposited by the complainant in the loan account and is adjusted towards interest is not to be re-adjusted towards principal at the time of settlement of the loan account. As such, the complainant has failed to prove his case on the file and is not entitled to any relief mentioned in the complaint.                     

9.       In light of the above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in Open Forum.

Dated 15.11.2016.

                             (Jaswinder Kaur)                   (A.K. Mehta)

                                    Member                                      President