Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/2

Asha Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

N.K. Maheshwari

06 Jan 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

 Complaint No. :        02 of 2019

 Date of Institution:    01.01.2019

Date of Decision :       06.01.2020

 

Asha Goyal aged about 52 years son of Ram Sarup r/o W. No. 10, Opposite Nehru Park, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

           .........Complainant

Versus   

1. Punjab National Bank, Branch Office at Jaitu, Teh-Jaitu, District Faridkot through its Branch Manager/Authorized Person.
2. Punjab National Bank, PNB House, SCO No.31-42, Bank Square, Sec-17-B, Chandigarh through its Authorized Person/ Manager.
3. Punjab National Bank, #7, PNB House, Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi-110066 c/o Rajender Bhawan, Rajender Place, New Delhi, 110008 through its Managing Director/ Director/Manager/ Authorized Person.

                                                                         .............OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:  Sh Neeraj Maheshwary, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

               Sh Madan Lal Bansal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

cc no.- 02 of 2019

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                                Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.8,700/- and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and harassment alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.5,500/-.

2                                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he has a saving account bearing no.0246000100183409 with OPs bank and she also holds loan account bearing no.124600JH00001384 under Pardhan Mantri Scheme, in which she has been paying regular instalments. It is submitted that due to inadvertence and some personal difficulties, she could not pay some instalments. It is submitted that in September, 2018 there were more than Rs.17,000/-in her saving account and she issued cheque worth Rs.10,000/-in the name of one of her relatives, who was in need of money, but Ops dishonoured the cheque due to less amount in her account. Thereafter, complainant approached OPs and asked about less balance, then she came to know that OPs debited Rs.8,700/-from her  account without her prior permission and without any intimation to her. She made several requests to them to credit the said amount alongwith interest into her account, but OPs did not pay any heed to her genuine requests, which amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. All theract and conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade

cc no.- 02 of 2019

mal practice and it has caused harassment and mental agony to her. Complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                              The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 07.01.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the OPs.

4                                               On receipt of the notice, the OPs filed written statement wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is averred that complainant has levelled false allegations as he has concealed and suppressed the material facts from therForum and has not come to the Forum with clean hands. It is averred that complainant availed loan from their bank under Prime Minister Mudra Yojna by stating wrong facts. Complainant was not eligible for availing loan, but complainant very cleverly managed to arrange loan on false grounds. Moreover, she has never been regular in making payment of instalments under said loan and intentionally did not repay the same. Despite repeated requests by OPs, she did not repay the defaulted instalments. It is further averred that since 7.11.2017,

 

cc no.- 02 of 2019

complainant did not pay any amount in her loan account and her account was irregular and was going to be NPA, but large amount was lying available in her saving account that clearly shows that complainant had some malafide intention due to which she was not depositing amount in her loan account on account of instalments due for loan availed by her. Therefore, OP-1 transferred the amount from her saving account to her loan account on 24.09.2018 and has every right and it is fully authorized to recover the defaulted amount from the complainant. Complainant never approached them and also did not pay any amount in her loan account for the six months. Complainant has levelled false allegations and tried to distort the facts. Complainant has levelled incorrect and false allegations with ulterior motive to gain undue advantage from them. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and asserted that complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and have also denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                              Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and then, closed their evidence.

6                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of

cc no.- 02 of 2019

Kanwarjeet Singh Ex OP-1 and then, after availing sufficient opportunities, OPs did not conclude their evidence and therefore, evidence of OPs was closed by order of the Forum dated 16.12.2019.

7                                               We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

8                                               From the careful perusal of record and evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that she holds a saving account in the bank of OPs and her loan account is also running with OPs bank under Pardhan Mantri Scheme, but due to some personal difficulties, she could not pay some instalments of loan.  As per complainant, more than Rs.17,000/-were lying available in her saving account and she issued cheque worth Rs.10,000/-in favour of one of her relatives, but same was dishonoured due to less amount in her account. On enquiry from OPs, she came to know that OPs debited Rs.8,700/-from her account, which were transferred into her loan account. OPs debited the amount without her prior permission and without any intimation to her.  Grievance of the complainant is that despite making several requests to OPs to credit the said amount alongwith interest into her account, OPs did not do anything needful, which amount to deficiency in service. In reply, OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted

cc no.- 02 of 2019

that complainant availed loan from their bank by concealing the real facts and by misstating the facts. Complainant availed loan from their bank under Prime Minister Mudra Yojna by stating wrong facts. Complainant very cleverly managed to arrange loan on false grounds. Even, she has never been regular in making payment of instalments against loan availed by him and intentionally did not repay the same. Despite repeated requests, she did not repay the defaulted instalments and since 7.11.2017, complainant did not pay any amount in her loan account and her account was irregular and was going to be NPA. Large amount was lying available in her saving account but she was not depositing amount in her loan account against outstanding instalments. Therefore, OP-1 transferred the amount in question from her saving account to her loan account on 24.09.2018 and they have every right to do so. Moreover, OPs are fully authorized to recover the amount due towards complainant. Complainant neither approached them not did she pay any amount in her loan account for last six months. Allegations levelled by complainant are devoid of truth. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and asserted that complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and have also denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

  9                                          Ld Counsel for OPs brought before the Forum that complainant availed loan under Prime Minister Mudra

cc no.- 02 of 2019

Scheme from their bank by giving wrong statement and after availing the loan, she defaulted in repaying the instalments against said loan account. She had sufficient amount in her saving account but she deliberately did not make payment of instalments for last six months. Her loan account became irregular and was going to be NPA though large credit was lying available in her saving account. OPs have every right to recover the loan amount and therefore, being fully authorized and competent to recover the defaulted payments, OPs debited the saving account of complainant and transferred the said amount to her loan account. They have made right transfer as per rules and regulations of Bank and there is no irregularity in it. Complainant was several times asked and requested to make payment of defaulted amount against loan availed by her but despite having sufficient balance in her saving account, she did not deposit the instalment against her loan account with them. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Ld counsel for complainant had nothing to say to contradict the allegations of opposite parties and it is also admitted that complainant availed loan from OPs bank and instalments against loan account have not been paid by her for long time.  Huge amount is still pending against loan account which has been admittedly not been paid by complainant. The complainant was duty bound to repay the instalments of loan on time regularly as agreed between the parties. But she failed to abide by the terms of loan agreement and did not repay the loan on time. Even  during the proceedings of present complaint, complainant did not

cc no.- 02 of 2019

show her any intention to repay the loan. The bank has every right to recover the loan amount from complainant by setting off the amount lying in the saving account of complainant. Thus, it is observed that OPs have done nothing wrong to save her loan account from becoming Non Performing Asset (NPA) and there is no illegality in it.

10                                    From the above discussion and evidence and pleadings put forward by parties, it is made out that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 to OP-3. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 6.01.2020

                                      (Param Pal Kaur)             (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                      Member                                   President