Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/842/2013

Chander Mohan S/o Krishan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

M.C.Gupta

29 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR.

                                                                                                Complaint No. 842 of 2013

                                                                                                Date of institution: 25.11.2013 

                                                                                                Date of decision: 29.06.2017

 

1. Chander Mohan son of Shri Krishan Lal , aged about 43 years.
2. Smt. Preeti wife of Shri Chander Mohan, aged about 37 years.

both residents of D-2/865 Shanti Colony, Village Gadholi, Near Chitta Mandir, District Yamuna Nagar.

…Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, through its Branch Manager, BO RAB, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                          …Respondent

               

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND…..…… MEMBER.

 

Present:            Shri Sumit Gupta, Advocate and Shri MC Gupta, Advocate for complainant.

                        Shri Balwinder Kumar Saini, Advocate for OP.

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the respondent (hereinafter will be referred as OP).

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that complainant had applied for 8 Marla plot in Urban Estate, Rohtak vide Sr.  No.199648 for which earnest money of Rs.1,57,800/- was to be deposited by the OP bank and complainant was asked to deposit the advance interest of Rs.8482/- against the said amount. Similarly, the complainant Smt. Preeti had applied for 10 Marla plot in Urban Estate, Rohtak vide Sr. No.199649 for which earnest money of Rs.2,14,800/- was to be deposited by the OP Bank and the complainant was asked to deposit the advance interest of Rs.11,546/- against the said amount which was duly deposited by them with the OP Bank. It has been further mentioned that, at that time the officials of the OP Bank asked the complainants to give blank cheques by taking plea that if in case the plot of complainants come in their favour in draw of lots in that eventuality the amount paid by the OP would be withdrawn. Accordingly, complainant did not smell any foul play at that time and had given two blank cheques bearing No.000000883217 and 883218 drawn on HDFC Bank Branch Yamuna Nagar from their joint account. Unfortunately, the draw of lots could not be held upto 6 months by HUDA and as the OP was having blank cheques of complainants with them, so the OP presented the said cheques by filing the amount of interest of further period and charged Rs.4107/- and Rs.5591/- on account of interest from the complainants respectively for which they have got no right to do so. It was the policy of the HUDA that if the draw of lots comes after six months in that eventuality the HUDA used to pay interest for the late  period, because the said amount was financed by the OP Bank, so the interest amount would have been credited in the account of the OP Bank. In this way, the OP Bank is getting double interest one from HUDA and other from complainant which is against the principle of law. After that, complainants made many requests to the OP Bank to refund the amount, but all in vain and finding no alternate complainants have send a legal notice dated 13.08.2013 upon the OP Bank but they remained failed to comply the same. Lastly it has been prayed that OP Bank be directed to make the payment of Rs.4107/- and Rs.5591/- which has been illegally withdrawn by them along with interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence short affidavit of complainants as Annexure CW/A, photocopy of acknowledgements slip of HUDA Department as Annexure C-1, photocopy of acknowledgment slip of HUDA Department as Annexure C-2, photocopy of account statement as Annexure C-3, photocopy of legal notice as Annexure C-4, postal receipts and acknowledgement as Annexure C-5 and C-6 and closed his evidence on behalf of complainant.

4.                     Upon notice, OP Bank appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, complainants have no cause of action, there was specific  undertaking on the part of the complainant on the application form to pay the difference of interest in case of delay in refund of money/registration amount and other expenses also; complainant is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, as admitted by the complainant in para No.3 of the complainant itself, the finance formalities was provided by the OP Bank to the complainant for a period of six (6) months because within six (6) months draw of the plots come out by HUDA. But draw of plots by HUDA came out after 10 months 28 days, ,meaning thereby the lapse was on the part of the HUDA and the complainants are further liable to pay interest @ 10.75% per annum on the finance amount beyond six (6) months i.e. on the period of 4 months 28 days. More so, the rate of interest of HUDA on the refunding amount is less than that of the OP Bank and the complainants are liable to make good of that margin, which the OP Bank as per law and rules has legally charged and after adjusting the amount to the tune of Rs.3852/- and Rs.2830/- paid by HUDA, as interest, charged the balance interest amount to the tune of Rs.4107/- and Rs.5591/- respectively from the complainants through the said two cheques there was absolutely no illegality and assertion of the complainant is totally wrong and baseless and on merit all the contents of the complaint were controverted and reiterated the stand taken in preliminary objection.

5.                     Counsel for the OP Bank failed to adduce any evidence despite so many opportunities so the evidence of the OP Bank was closed by Court order vide order dated 10.04.2017.  

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     The only grievance of the complainants is that OP bank has wrongly and illegally charged excess interest amount of Rs.4107/-  and Rs.5591/- from the complainants on account of interest for further period beyond six(6) months as the draw of the plots not came out within a period of six (6) months as HUDA has also paid the interest to the OP Bank, meaning thereby that the OP Bank is getting double interest one from HUDA and other from the complainants  which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Bank.

8.                     Whereas on the other hand, as per version of the OP Bank, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Bank. The draw of the plots by HUDA came out after 10 months 28 days i.e. after a period of more than 4 months 28 days beyond six (6) months for which the OP Bank charged the interest in advance from the complainant. Further, the rate of interest of the HUDA on refunding amount was less then that the OP bank and as per undertaking given by the complainants at the time of filing the applications (Annexure R-1 and R-2), the complainants were liable to pay difference of interest in case of delay in refund of money / registration amount and other expenses also.

9.                     Further, as per version of the OP Bank, after adjusting the amount of interest of Rs.3852/- and 2830/- paid by the HUDA, OP Bank has charged the interest amount to the tune of Rs.4107/-  and Rs.5591/- respectively from the complainants vide two cheques so there was no illegality on the part of the OP Bank.

10.                   After hearing both the counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Bank as from the perusal of the applications of the complainants (Annexure R-1 and R-2), it is duly evident that complainants have given undertaking to pay the difference of interest in case of delay in refund of money/registration amount and other expenses to the OP Bank. Further, as per version of the OP Bank, there was difference in the rate of interest paid by the HUDA and charged by the OP Bank and accordingly, after adjusting the amount of Rs.3852/- and Rs.2830/- paid by the HUDA as interest, an amount of Rs.4107/- and Rs.5591/- has been rightly charged from the complainants. The complainants have totally failed to point any ambiguity in the calculation of the interest amount charged by the OP Bank for the further period of 4 months 28 days beyond the period of 6 months for which they already deposited the advance interest with the OP Bank and in the absence of any cogent evidence, we are of the considered view that complainants are not entitled to get any relief.

11.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Pronounced in open court.                                         

Dated: 29.06.2017.                                                      (ASHOK KUMAR GARG),

                                                                                    PRESIDENT, DCDRF

                                                                                    YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI

                       

 

                        (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)            (S.C. SHARMA)          

                          MEMBER                                            MEMBER