BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complt.  Case No :  76  of  2010

Date of Institution:    05.02.2010

Date of Decision  :    21.07.2010

Rakesh Parshad son of Sh.Prem Dutt, R/o H.No.293-94, Vill. Khuda Lahora, U.T., Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V E R S U S

Punjab National Bank, Kudha Lahora, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Party

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                         PRESIDENT

                    SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI            MEMBER

                    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

PRESENT:     Complainant in person.

Sh.V.M.Malhotra,Adv. for OP.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                The instant complaint has been filed by Sh.Rakesh Parshad, complainant  against Punjab National Bank (OP).

1]             The facts in brief are as under:-

                The complainant had taken a loan of Rs.50,000/- from OP Bank under P.M.R.Y. Scheme for running a Karyana Shop. As he was a continuous defaulter, the loan amount increased to Rs.80,000/- due to penalties and interest imposed upon the complainant.   The complainant also approached the Branch Manager of OP Bank to grant him a credit limit for the promotion of his business, which the bank refused.  The complainant states that it was difficult for him to repay the loan installments as his business was not doing well.  He has now made a request that he has given up the shop as he could not afford the rent, and is now interested in a fresh loan to purchase a new vehicle so that he can use it for his livelihood as he knows how to drive.  The complainant has thus filed this complaint against the OP’s praying that the OP’s be estopped from proceeding against him for the earlier loan and also advance a new car loan to him.

2]             After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP.

3]             The OP in their reply took the preliminary objection that no cause of action can accrue to the complainant to file the present complaint against them since there is no deficiency in service on their part.  Also according to them, the Consumer Forum cannot direct the bank to grant  a new loan to anyone since bank loans and provision of credit limit by the bank are internal matters of the bank only. 

                Replying to the complaint, the OP Bank has stated that the complainant after taking Term Loan of Rs.50,000/- on 30.1.2005 repayable in 60 EMIs was a continuous defaulter due to non-payment of loan installments.   The amount due from him as on 30.6.2008 was Rs.32,074/- + interest.  In the Lok Adalat, the complainant had agreed to deposit Rs.1500/- per month in 20 installments, which also remains unpaid.  Presently a sum of Rs.40,945/- is due from the complainant.  It is stated that the Bank is not bound to sanction any limit to a willful defaulter especially in a case where the matter of default has been adjudicated by the Lok Adalat at Chandigarh.  Further the complainant is not eligible for a vehicle loan either. 

4]             We have heard the complainant and ld.Counsel for OP and have also perused the evidence and documents placed on record by the parties.

5]             At the time of arguments, the complainant, appeared in person. He wished to stress on the fact that he was a poor man and was unable to pay the loan installment demanded by the bank.  He made a request that the bank be directed to adjust with him and take a lenient view so that he would be in a comfort zone  and repay when able.

6]             The Bank obviously could not and would not be in a position to accede to this request of the complainant.  The complainant’s request sounds baseless and unjustified.  Looking at the facts of the case and his track record, it is clear that the complainant has been a continuous defaulter with the bank and now wants unreasonable concession.  The Bank is a profit making service provider. It does not maintain a benevolent fund to give donations and concessions to people who need money.

7]             It is case of strange logic where the complainant looks for ‘compromise when he is himself wrong and justice when others are wrong’. In this case, the bank is definitely not wrong in demanding the balance loan amount from the complainant.  They are also not wrong in refusing to sanction any fresh loan to the complainant especially when he is a continuous defaulter.

8]             In view of the above findings, the complaint is hereby dismissed.  Both the parties are left to bear their own costs.

9]             Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

21.07.2010                                                                      Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                                   Sd/-

                                       (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                             (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Om’