Haryana

Karnal

412/2012

Dharam Pal S/o Rameshwar Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

V.S. Rana

10 Sep 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.412 of 2012

                                                          Date of instt.30.08.2012

                                                          Date of decision:25.03.2015

 

Dharam Pal son of Sh.Rameshwar Dass resident of village Khozkipur tehsil Bapoli district Panipat

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                   Vs.

 

The Senior Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Sector 13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                                                  …..Opposite Party.

 

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

 

Before        Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.

 

Present:-    Sh.V.S.Rana Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Somesh Garg Advocate for the OP.

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that he was in need of money and he contacted Branch Manager of the OP who asked him to deposit a sum of Rs.16,5000/- in the shape of FDR and promised to sanction the overdraft of Rs.15,00,000/-  against the said FDR. The complainant deposited the said amount of Rs.16,50,000/- and he was issued FDR No. PR 24710 dated 5.8.2010  for a period of six months which was to mature on  5.2.2011 and the rate of interest  5.75% per annum. The said FDR was renewed from time to time and during the intervening  period the OP adjusted the interest of  FDR  for the recovery of interest against the over draft limit. The complainant received a letter dated 15.5.2012 vide which he was asked to deposit the  overdraft   facility and thereafter he received letter dated 23.5.2012  vide which the OP closed the FDR of the complainant and adjusted the said amount in the over draft limit and the balance amount of Rs.43,374/- was credited in his account. The  complainant objected to the said adjustment but in vain. The complainant has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint alongwith the copy of the  Insurance policy.

2.                On notice the OP appeared and filed its written statement raising the preliminary objections that the present complaint was not maintainable and that the complainant doesnot come within the definition of Consumer.

 

                   On merits it was contended that OP, the complainant was given  over draft facility to the extent of  Rs.15,00,000/- @ 7.75%  per annum with monthly rests against the FDR  deposited in the sum of Rs.16,50,000/-  on 7.8.2010. The OP wrote letter to the complainant to deposit the  outstanding amount in the over draft facility but in vain and thereafter the OP adjusted the loan amount from the realization of FDR amount on 23.5.2012 and letter was issued to the complainant.  It was thus contended that there was no d efficiency in services on the part of the OP and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

 

3.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

4.                Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned  counsel for the parties it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP on the allegations that he was in need of money and he contacted Branch Manager of the OP who asked him to deposit a sum of Rs.16,5000/- in the shape of FDR and promised to sanction the overdraft of Rs.15,00,000/-  against the said FDR. The complainant deposited the said amount of Rs.16,50,000/- and he was issued FDR No. PR 24710 dated 5.8.2010  for a period of six months which was to mature on  5.2.2011 and the rate of interest  5.75% per annum. The said FDR was renewed from time to time and during the intervening  period the OP adjusted the interest of  FDR  for the recovery of interest against the over draft limit. The complainant received a letter dated 15.5.2012 vide which he was asked to deposit the  overdraft   facility and thereafter he received letter dated 23.5.2012  vide which the OP closed the FDR of the complainant and adjusted the said amount in the over draft limit and the balance amount of Rs.43,374/- was credited in his account. The complainant objected to the said adjustment but in vain.

 

 5.                    However, as per the contention of the OP, the complainant was given  over draft facility to the extent of  Rs.15,00,000/- @ 7.75%  per annum with monthly rests against the FDR  deposited in the sum of Rs.16,50,000/-  on 7.8.2010. The OP wrote letter to the complainant to deposit the  outstanding amount in the over draft facility but in vain and thereafter the OP adjusted the loan amount from the realization of FDR amount on 23.5.2012 and letter was issued to the complainant. The said FDR was adjusted in view of the agreement as shown in Ex.OP3.

 

                    The learned counsel for the OP has relied upon the law laid down in case  Ramesh Chandra Singh Vs.State Bank of India and another  III (2013) CPJ600 in order justify the adjustment of the FDR amount in the outstanding amount of over draft limit.

 

6.                 Therefore, after going through the evidence and circumstances of the case, there is no dispute that the complainant deposited the FDR in the sum of Rs.16,50,000/- and availed the over draft facility  to the extent of Rs.15,00,000/- and executed document/agreement. It has come in evidence that the complainant had failed  to regularize the over draft account in terms of the agreement and thereafter the OP adjusted the amount of FDR in the over draft limit and deposited the balance sum of Rs.43,000/- in the account of the complainant. Therefore,  in view of the ratio laid down in  Ramesh Chandra Singh.s case (Supra)  the act of the  OP in adjusting the FDR  in  consonance with the agreement of the complainant  with the OP was justified and as such there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

 

7.                Therefore, as a sequel to our above discussion, we find no merit in thepresent complaint and as such the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated: 25.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

                Dharampal Versus Sr.Br.Manager, PNB

 

 

Present:-    Sh.V.S.Rana Advocate for the complainant.

                 Sh.Somesh Garg Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. For orders, the case is adjourned to 25.3.2015.

Announced
dated: 24.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

 

Present:-    Sh.V.S.Rana Advocate for the complainant.

                 Sh.Somesh Garg Advocate for the OP.

 

               Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated: 25.03.2015                                                                            

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.