HON’BLE MR. DINESH SINGH, MEMBER

1.       On 03.06.2019 we heard learned counsel for the complainants on admission, and perused the entire material on record.

2.       This complaint has been filed against Punjab National Bank (PNB) for alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complaint relates to disbursal, and its consequent recovery with interest in monthly instalments, of a housing loan sanctioned by the PNB to the complainants for making part sale consideration to the PNB for a property obtained by the complainants in an auction conducted by the PNB (the housing loan was sanctioned by the PNB to the complainants against the same subject property that was obtained by the complainants through the said auction conducted by the PNB). An application for interim relief, inter alia that no further interest be debited to the housing loan account of the complainant w.e.f. 24.07.2017, has also been filed with the complaint.

3.       For ready appreciation of the specificities of the case, we may first quote the following extracts:

synopsis and list of dates and events filed by the complainants

That through an Auction dated 15.07.2016 conducted by the opposite party, Complainants bided for the property bearing no. H-208, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi-110052 (hereinafter to be referred as “Said Property”) for a total sale consideration of Rs. 6,10,05,000/-(Rupees Six Crore Ten Lakhs and Five thousand only). Complying with the terms of Auction, Part Sale Consideration of Rs. 1,60,05,000/-(Rupees One Crore Sixty Lakhs and Five Thousand only) was paid to the Opposite party including TDS amount of 1%  on the said property. For balance amount of Rs. 4,50,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crore Fifty Lakhs only), opposite party assured to provide Housing Loan on the same property and same was hurriedly sanctioned by the opposite party vide letter dated 27.07.2016. However, it was agreed that once the sale certificate is registered in the favour of Complainants, then Loan amount will be disbursed at the rate of interest prevalent at the time as Loan was to be taken on the same property. Further, in order to show its bona-fide, opposite party revalidated the sale certificate of said property on 29.05.2017. Believing upon the representation and assurances of the opposite party, and acting on said representation, Complainants proceeded for registration of Sale Certificate of above-mentioned property on 30.05.2017 after an inordinate delay of 10.5 months on the part of opposite party. However, to the utter shock and surprise of complainants, it was learnt that opposite party illegally shown the disbursement of loan amount on 09.08.2016, though sale certificate was registered on 30.05.2017. It is glaring to note that complainants never gave their consent to opposite party for disbursement of loan. False, forged and fabricated entries have been made in the account of the complainants by the opposite party on its own, thereby causing wrongful loss, huge financial loss and harassment to them. Opposite party cannot charge the interest on the said loan amount without the consent and authority of complainants and same tantamount to gross negligence, deficiency of service and unfair trade practices on the part of opposite party, for which it is liable to compensate to the complainants.

(extracts from synopsis and list of dates and events)

(emphasis supplied by us)

complaint filed by the complainants

4. E. That for balance amount of Rs.4,50,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores and Fifty Lakhs only), opposite party assured to provide Housing Loan to the Complainant.  Believing upon the representations and assurances of the opposite party, Complainant applied for above-mentioned Loan which was hurriedly sanctioned by the opposite party against the Same Property vide letter dated 27.07.2016.  Letter dated 27.07.2016 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-A/5. Complainants were also made to sign some blank papers in good faith by the opposite party, photocopies of which are retained by the complainants. However, it was agreed that once the sale certificate is registered in the favour of Complainants, then Loan amount will be disbursed as Loan was to be taken on the same property. It is pertinent to mention herein that till date, Complainant never requested the bank for disbursement of housing loan sanctioned vide letter dated 27.07.2016.  Even otherwise, Loan could not be disbursed by the bank without taking approval from the Complainant and without the property being transferred in the name of complainants.

O.  That feeling aggrieved, Complainants written a letter dated 09.12.2016 to the opposite party and requested to register Sale Certificate/Letter of said property in the favour of Complainants within 10 days, failing which, opposite party is required to return / refund the entire money paid as part sale consideration, amount paid as TDS, amount spent in procuring / purchasing E-Stamp Papers along with 24% interest on all of the above coupled with Damages & Compensation. However, deliberately, no response / reply was given by opposite party for the said letter. Letter dated 09.12.2016 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-A/10.

P. That again, Complainants written a letter dated 21.12.2016 to the opposite party and requested the same but no response was received from the side of opposite party.  Letter dated 21.12.2016 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-A/11.

Q. That by now, Complainants learnt that matter pertaining to Said Property is pending before Debt Recovery Tribunal and some Hon’ble Court’s order dated 08.09.2016 was passed by the Ld. Tribunal, on the application of one, Mr. Ajay Gupta Shree Nath Jewellers (hereinafter to be referred as “Borrower”) under Section 17 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (”SARFASEI Act”). Thus, opposite party is not coming forward for registration of documents and complainants are being deprived from exercising their lawful rights qua the said property.

Z. That thereafter, when no reply was received from the opposite party, then, feeling aggrieved, complainants were constrained to file their grievance / representation before Principal Nodal Officer (General Manager) of the opposite party on 24.04.2017.  Copy of said representation dated 24.07.2017 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-A20. Complainants were hoping for justice from Principal Nodal officer of opposite party/PNB but all in vain, and till date, no response was received.    

(paras 4. E, O, P, Q & Z of the complaint)

(emphasis supplied by us)

4.       On a careful perusal of [a] the synopsis and list of dates and events and [b] the complaint, we first note that the requisite clarity, and the holistic and comprehensive details, as are required to be included in a complaint of such specificities, and moreso when accompanied with an application for interim relief, are not forthcoming.

That  being as it is, what we gather, from the averments and allegations made in [a] the synopsis of list of dates and events and [b] the complaint, is that the PNB conducted an auction of the subject property (H-208, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi-110052) in which the complainants were the successful bidders. The complainants paid part of the sale consideration themselves. For the balance sale consideration, a housing loan was sanctioned by the PNB to the complainants against the same subject property that was obtained by the complainants through the said auction conducted by the PNB. In parallels, litigation related to the said subject property was going on in the DRT under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 between the PNB and one M/s Ajay Gupta Shree Nath Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. The PNB refrained from / delayed registering the sale-certificate of the subject property. The housing loan, relating to the balance sale consideration, was, however, disbursed to the complainants by the PNB, and the PNB started its recovery with interest in monthly instalments.

5.       Going by the complainants’ averments and allegations, on the one hand, the PNB, while being involved, in parallels, in litigation with one M/s Ajay Gupta Shree Nath Jewellers in the DRT under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, undertook auction of the subject property and sanctioned a housing loan against the same subject property to the successful bidder (the complainants) for making part sale consideration to the PNB, and, on the other hand, the complainants paid part sale consideration for the said property, got a housing loan from the PNB for the balance sale consideration, and for non-registration / delay in registration of the sale-certificate by the PNB have challenged the disbursal of the loan amount (which was for the balance sale consideration) and its consequent recovery with interest in monthly instalments by the PNB.

6.       We also note that allegations of “False, forged and fabricated entries” having been made in the account of the complainants by the PNB “on its own” and allegations of the complainants being “made to sign some blank papers” “in good faith” by the PNB have inter alia been made.

7.       We further note that [a] a pertinent question, that whether the one M/s Ajay Gupta Shree Nath Jewellers was the original owner of the subject property, or whether he had any interest therein, as also that [b] the requisite details of the litigation in the DRT / courts between the PNB and the said one M/s Ajay Gupta Shree Nath Jewellers and its present extant position, have not been sufficiently elaborated upon or made sufficiently clear in the complaint.

The one M/s Ajay Gupta Shree Nath Jewellers has not been made an opposite party in the memo of the array of the parties.

8.       Without commenting on the merits in the case of either side, we, but, find this whole matter to have a bad air.

9.       Noting the entire material on record, including, inter alia, specifically, [a] the synopsis of list of dates and events and [b] the complaint, and the specificities of the averments and allegations inherent therein, in our considered view, this case, for apt adjudication on merit, requires recording of extensive oral evidence and proving extensive documentary evidence as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and adherence to the substantive and procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, best undertaken in a civil court.

In other words, we do not find the case, as discernible from the entire material on record, and from the specificities of the averments and allegations inherent therein, to be such as can be aptly adjudicated on merit in summary proceedings by quasi - judicial consumer protection tribunals established under the Act 1986.

10.     We also note that the PNB is a scheduled nationalized public sector bank. Its officers are accountable, both to the bank hierarchy, and to the CVC. Its accounts are subject to audit.

11.     We find it appropriate and necessary to advise the chief executive of the PNB to get the matter related to this whole case (in its PNB, ARMB, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, New Delhi – 110091 branch) inquired into by an external senior responsible officer and to take the necessary appropriate steps in case of any irregularity, or of any infringement of any administrative, financial or vigilance rule / s, on the part of its said branch / officers concerned. The said inquiry officer should be higher in level than / different from the Principal Nodal Officer (General Manager) referred to in para 4 . Z of the complaint.

Towards this end, the Registrar of this Commission shall send a copy each [a] of the synopsis and list of dates and events and [b] of the complaint to the chief executive of the PNB within ten days of the pronouncement of this Order.

12.     The complaint is dismissed, with liberty to the complainants to seek remedy in a competent civil court as per the law.

It goes without saying that the rights of the complainants to agitate their case before any competent authority remain unaffected.

But consumer protection fora established under the Act 1986, to provide alternative additional remedy to consumers, are not for them.

13.     We make it explicit that this Commission has no comments or observations whatsoever on the merits in the case, of either side, i.e. of either the complainants or of the PNB. (As such, we have consciously refrained from an in-depth / further critique of the matter.)

This Commission’s advice and order are as contained in paras 11 and 12 above.

14.     Let a copy of this Order be placed forthwith before the Registrar by the Registry for compliance of para 11 above.

15.     The Registry is also directed to send a copy of this Order to the opposite party (PNB, ARMB, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, New Delhi – 110091 branch through its Manager) within three days of its pronouncement.

The opposite party (PNB, ARMB, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, New Delhi – 110091 branch through its Manager) is directed to bring this Order to the notice of the chief executive of the PNB in reference to para 11 above within ten days of its receipt.

16.     So disposed.