DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.251/18
Sneh Aggarwal
Venus Appartment
Flat No.25, Plot No.43
Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-85. .…Complainant
VERSUS
Punjab National Bank
5, Parliament Street
New Delhi.
The Chief Manager
Punjab National Bank
5, Parliament Street
New Delhi. ….Opposite Parties
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Complainant in person.
Present: Adv. Rajat Arora for OP.
ORDER
Date of Institution:30.08.2018
Date of Order :23.07.2024
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking Rs. 77570.84 with interest @24% from the date of mis-calculation from October 1991 till realization; Rs.6000/- along with interest @24% towards higher interest charged by the OPs; Rs.5,00,000/- for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony, Rs.2,00,000/- litigation charges. OP-1 is Punjab National Bank and OP-2 is the Chief Manager of OP-1.
- It is the case of the complainant that she was working as clerk-cum-cashier with the OP since 1978, she was suspended from service on 30.01.1992 and later dismissed on 11.08.1995. It is further stated that complainant during her service had applied for house loan in the year 1983 from her employer i.e. OP-1 and the amount of Rs.83,300/- in 1984 was granted to her.
- It is stated that the house loan instalments were automatically deducted by the OP from the salary of the complainant. At the time of her transfer to Parliament Street Branch, the Ledger Sheet of house loan account showed the balance of Rs.43,819/- along with interest. Complainant took another house loan of Rs.26,700/- and the total house loan then was Rs.70,519/-. The Ledger Sheet is annexed as annexure CW1/1.
- It is the allegation of the complainant that her other account which was not in her knowledge showed the entry of loan of Rs.21,900/- and Rs.8,000/- whereas the complainant had not applied for any such loan. The second Loan Account Ledger Sheet is annexed as annexure CW1/2.
- It is further alleged that OPs -1 and 2 suo moto assumed that the total loan amount of the complainant exceeds Rs.1,10,000/- and started interest @11.5% per annum instead of 11% and 5.25% instead of 5%. The OPs have also mixed the interest and loan amount and have started charging compound interest. It is stated that the OPs have charged illegal excess interest @15.5% per annum which comes of Rs.39,178.84. Further the OPs have charged compound interest of Rs.2352/- as is clearly shown in annexure CW1/1. It is further stated that the OPs have converted complainant’s house loan account as NPA without any notice to her.
- It is further stated that OPs adjusted complainant’s house loan account on 04.11.1997 along with interest from bank’s protested advance account by charging falsely on one pretext or the other. It is further stated that the OPs have wrongly put all the dues i.e. PF and Gratuity amount of the complainant in bank’s protested advance account without any notice to the complainant since 1997-2015. Complainant got this information only in 2015 through RTI which is annexed as annexure CW1/3.
- In another RTI reply dated 25.04.2014 OPs have admitted their mistake of charging excess interest of Rs.39,178.84 and the same was credited in the protested advance account, however, the discrepancy is still there as the balance sheet is tallying with the account details provided by the OPs. As the RTI reply dated 20.07.2015 even the remaining amount of Rs.22,897.59 has not been given the complainant and has been shown as credited/added to the bank’s sundry account whereas the actual amount is Rs.23,082.61. RTI reply is annexed as annexure CW1/3.
- It is the allegation of the complainant that the OPs are supposed to supply the correctness of balance confirmation sheet to the complainant after every six months which they have not complied with. It is stated that the action of the OPs in charging higher interest rate, compound interest and excess interest is unfair and arbitrary on the part of the OPs. Copy of the rules and regulations of house loan as given by the OPs is annexed as annexure CW1/5.
- It is seen from the order dated 14.09.2018 that OP-1 was deleted from the array of parties by the complainant and the matter was continued against the Chief Manager of OP-1 and the reply to the complaint however, has been filed on behalf of OP-1.
- In their reply the OP has taken the preliminary objection that the complaint is barred under Section 24A of CPA 1986. It is stated that the complainant is claiming the amounts which were held by the OP in October 1991 whereas the complaint has been filed in 2018 and hence is barred. OP has also raised objection pertaining to territorial jurisdiction. It is further stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP to attract the provisions of CPA 1986 and the complainant should have only filed a civil suit for recovery if permissible under the law.
- It is stated that the complainant was dismissed from service on 11.08.1995 by OP on account of misconduct in respect of the FDR given by her. It is stated that she had fraudulently inflated the FDR to derive pecuniary benefits for herself. It is stated that dismissal of service was challenged by the complainant which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PNB Vs. Sneh Aggarwal LPA 182/23, Sneh Aggarwal Vs. PNB LPA 303/23. It is further stated that complainant is in the habit of filing fictitious and false claims against the OP and has filed about nine cases against the OP.
- OP has admitted that complainant had taken the house loan and that instalments were being deducted from her salary. OP has further admitted annexure CW1/1 being the Ledger Sheet but has pointed that once the complainant was dismissed from service her loan account had to be adjusted. It is stated that the rate of interest charged by OP was a fluctuating rate of interest and was charged in accordance with the relevant circulars/guidelines at the relevant time. It is reiterated that rate of interest charged in the year 1997 cannot be a matter of dispute in 2018.
- It is stated by the OP that once there is cessation of employment and the OP the housing loan had to be adjusted. It is stated that in the RTI reply to the complainant it was informed to her that the housing loan of Rs.83,300/- was sanctioned in favour of the complainant on 17.11.1983 and was enhanced by Rs.66,700/- in terms of sanction order dated 20.08.1991. The total sanction was for Rs.1,50,000/- and on the date of dismissal of the complainant from the service the outstanding balance Rs.1,42,775.25.
H/Loan @11.25% Rs.26,220.40
H/Loan @5.25% Rs.70,519.00
Interest Account Rs.46,035.85
TOTAL Rs.1,42,775.25
It is stated that after levy of interest/insurance, a sum of Rs.1,60,594/- was transferred to the protested advance account on 04.11.1997. Subsequently, PF dues of Rs.78272.77, Gratuity dues of Rs.66,225/- and excess interest refund of Rs.39178.84 total amounting to Rs.183676.61 was credited to her account on 21.11.1997. It is further stated that after adjustment of dues of outstanding in the housing loan account a sum of Rs.22,897.59 was credited to the sundry account. The complainant was also informed about the said entries in terms of her RTI application. Hence the allegation made that the rate of interest charged by the OP is excessive is wrong.
- It is further denied by the OP that they have admitted to any mistake of charging excessive rate of interest from the complainant under RTI reply. It is stated that the entries made by the bank are in accordance with law and the bank has followed the relevant rules. It is stated that the complainant is not entitled to any amount. OP has reiterated that the complaint is barred on the ground the delay and latches and that merely sending of the reply under RTI Act would not extend limitation.
- In her rejoinder, it is stated by the complainant that the complainant was facing court litigation forced upon her by the OP and came to know about the deficiency in service only through RTI. It is stated that as per the provisions of the law the complaint is filed without any delay. It is stated by the complainant that she was initially reinstated in the year 2011 however in 2013 she was dismissed.
- It is reiterated by the complainant that the loan account of the complainant was settled by the OP as admitted by them and the remaining balance was credited to sundry account and not paid to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has mostly reiterated other allegations made by her in the complaint. It is stated by her that OPs are custodian of the complainant’s funds so far as her legitimate funds in account of PF, gratuity and excess interest charged from her is concerned.
- Both the complainant as well as OP have filed their respective evidence affidavits as well as written submissions. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record and have heard the oral arguments. Complainant has placed on record annexure CW1/3 which is a reply to her RTI dated 20.07.2015 which according to her provided information to the complainant that a sum of Rs.22897.59 was credited to the sundry account after adjustment of all her dues. It is seen that the single judge of the Hon’ble High Court upheld the award passed by the Tribunal however, the quantum of punishment was changed and instead of removal from service the complainant was awarded compulsory retirement. This order the Hon’ble Single judge was set aside by the Division Bench of the same High Court in LPA 182/23 and the LPA filed by the complainant was dismissed.
- It is seen that during the pendency of this litigation before the Commission the matter has been decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court wherein the order of dismissal of the complainant from service has been upheld. It is also seen that vide order 02.12.2022 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court payment from the sundry account along with interest was made to the complainant by the OP.
- The preliminary objection raised by the OP that this Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint cannot be upheld as the matter pertains to branch of OP at Parliament Street which is within the jurisdiction of this Commission. As far as issue of limitation is concerned it is noticed that the complainant came to know of the amount being credited to her in 2015 vide RTI reply dated 20.07.2015 and the complaint has been filed on 30.08.2018 which is beyond the statutory period of limitation of two years. It is also not clear as to how the complainant is a consumer having availed of the facilities of loan as an employee of the OP.
The limitation period as prescribed by Section 24A under the 1986 Act for admission of a complaint by the consumer forum:
Limitation period - (1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
From the aforesaid provision, it is imperative that this Commission should examine, before the admission of the Complaint, that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action
As has been held by the Hon’ble State Commission in Gian Gupta vs DDA CC No. 155/2010 decided on 16.08.2021 “The expression, `shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the Complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality.”
Therefore, this complaint is dismissed being time barred.
Copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. order be uploaded on the website.
