Haryana

StateCommission

A/320/2015

JAIBIR - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

ANIRUDH KUSH

14 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :        320 of 2015

Date of Institution:        07.04.2015

Date of Decision :        14.12.2015

 

Jaibir s/o Sh. Chandgi Ram, Resident of Village Kungar, Tehsil Bawanikhera, District Bhiwani.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

Punjab National Bank, having its Head Office at 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi and among other branch office at Bawani Khera, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.

 

                             Respondent/Opposite Party

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Anirudh Kush, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Y.P. Sharma, Advocate, Advocate for respondent.

O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 5^th February, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by complainant was dismissed.

2.      Jaibir-complainant (appellant herein) filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that he had applied for loan of Rs.2,79,000/- against mortgage of his agriculture land, vide deed dated 22.12.2004. Out of the sanctioned loan of Rs.2,79,000/-, an amount of Rs.1,55,115/-  was waived off against tractor loan which was adjusted in his loan account. Thus, payable amount by the complainant was Rs.1,87,166/- as on 01.01.2009. It was further stated that the complainant had applied loan of Rs1,60,000/- under Kisan Credit Card Scheme to repay the tractor loan for which he executed supplementary mortgage-deed dated 25.01.2009. However, loan of Rs.1,60,000/- was not sanctioned, rather the bank cancelled the previous mortgage deed. He executed fresh mortgage deed on 22.12.2009 and amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was advanced to him out of which the amount of Rs.1,58,000/- was adjusted towards tractor loan and Rs.12,000/- was paid in cash. It was alleged that the loan of Rs.1,60,000/- was not disbursed to him.

3.      The opposite party/respondent contested complaint by filing reply stating that the complainant had applied loan of Rs.1,00,000/- under Kisan Credit Card Scheme by executing mortgage deed. However, he manipulated and forged the documents by converting the loan amount from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,60,000/-. Denying the averments made in the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      In this case the application (Annexure R-4) of the complainant to the Bank Manager is an important document. A perusal of this document shows that the complainant himself got cancelled the loan. Accordingly, vide Annexure R-5, the Sub Registrar, Bawani Khera cancelled the mortgage deed as well as mutation No.1080 dated 6.4.2009. In view of that, the loan was not released to the complainant. Thus, there was no deficiency on the part of the respondent-Bank and it was the complainant who himself got loan cancelled.  Thus, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

5.      In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

Announced 14.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL