BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No.404 of 2014 Date of Institution: 21.10.2014
Date of Decision: 23.2.2015
Gurwinder Singh, aged 37, son of Shabeg Singh, resident of House No.55, Street No.2, Sidhu Nagar, Near RSD College, Ferozepur City.
....... Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank, Branch Office Basti Tankan Wali, Ferozepur City, through its Branch Manager.
2. Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, 5, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Assistant General Manager.
3. Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority (GLADA), Ludhiana, through its Authorized Signatory.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Gurwinder Singh, complainant
For opposite party No.1 : Sh. Vipan Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For opposite party No.2 : E x-p a r t e
For opposite party No.3 : Sh. Sarvjit Singh, Advocate
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
S. Gyan Singh, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that opposite party No.3 launched a scheme for allotment of different plots to the allottees through
C.C. No.404 of 2014 \\2//
draw system. The complainant had also applied for allotment of the plot in the aforesaid scheme. For the purpose of depositing the token money, the complainant obtained financial assistance of Rs.1,53,000/- on 30.11.2012 and the said amount was remitted to opposite party No.3 through opposite party No.2, who is the Nodal opening for Punjab for all branches of PNB. The draw was opened and the complainant remained unsuccessful candidate. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment, opposite party No.3 was bound to return the token money to the depositor in case he remains unsuccessful. The complainant approached opposite party No.3 for remittance of his amount, which he had paid by obtaining loan from Punjab National Bank, under the R.T.I. Act and opposite party No.3 sent information in which it has been stated that the complainant had submitted application in time and the same was put in lucky draw, but the complainant did not win and his money was sent back to P.N.B., Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana on 10.4.2013. Thereafter, the complainant approached opposite party No.1 to inquire about the money received, but opposite party No.1 stated that the money had yet not been received. Thereafter, the complainant approached opposite party No.2, who gave reply vide letter dated 28.7.2014 that the amount has been received, but the same due to oversight remained pending with Branch Office, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana and thereafter it was sent on 24.7.2014. Therefore, from 10.4.2013 to
C.C. No.404 of 2014 \\3//
24.7.2014, the interest has been wrongly and illegally debited in the account of the complainant, which comes to Rs.23,000/- approximately. The complainant has alleged that all has occurred due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and this fact has also been admitted by opposite party No.2 in its reply sent after getting the information sought under the R.T.I. by the complainant. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.23,000/- being the interest amount debited in the account of the complainant along with future interest till payment. Further a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been claimed as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed its written reply to the complaint, wherein it has been pleaded that as per the information sought by the complainant from the GLADA i.e. opposite party No.3, it had informed the complainant that the allotment money for unsuccessful applicants under the said scheme was returned to Punjab National Bank, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana on 10.4.2013. However, the amount in lump sum was received by Nodal Office, Ludhiana, but no detail regarding the names of the unsuccessful candidates/applicants was provided by GLADA to Punjab National Bank, Nodal Office, Ludhiana.
C.C. No.404 of 2014 \\4//
The complainant never approached opposite party No.1 prior to the month of July 2014 to know as to whether the GLADA has returned the allotment money to opposite party No.1 or not. Since the complainant had obtained the financial assistance by way of demand loan of Rs.1,53,000/- from opposite party No.1 and the said money was remitted to the GLADA on behalf of the complainant, the bank is entitled to charge interest on the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement till the loan is fully liquidated either by refund by GLADA in the loan account or by making payment by the complainant. Since no amount was received by opposite party No.1 from the GLADA in the loan account, the bank is entitled to charge interest as per the terms of the loan agreement. However, the said amount of Rs.1,53,000/- along with interest of Rs.902/- totaling Rs.1,53,902/- was received on 24.7.2014 in the loan account and it has been credited in the loan account of the complainant by opposite party No.1. Thereafter, since the complainant has not paid the outstanding balance amount and the unapplied interest, opposite party No.1 is still entitled to recover the outstanding amount in his loan account, which is approximately Rs.16,273/- as on 1.9.2014 besides future interest ill realization. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
2. Opposite party No.2 did not appear before this Forum despite
C.C. No.404 of 2014 \\5//
service of notice. Therefore, opposite party No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 3.12.2014.
3. In its written reply, opposite party No.3 has not disputed the averments of the complaint and pleading no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, has prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua opposite party No.3.
4. The complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/4 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.3 did not lead any evidence despite availing sufficient opportunity for this purpose. Therefore, evidence of opposite party No.3 was closed by order dated 23.1.2015.
5. We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 and 3, considered the written arguments filed by opposite party No.3 and have also gone through the file.
6. It is the admitted case of the parties that opposite party No.3 had launched a scheme for allotment of different plots to the allottees through draw system and the complainant had applied for a plot to opposite party No.3 and paid the token money of Rs.1,53,000/- by obtaining loan from opposite party No.1. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the complainant was not the lucky winner of the said draw and as per the terms
C.C. No.404 of 2014 \\6//
and conditions of the said scheme, opposite party No.3 was to return the token money to the unsuccessful candidates. The grievance of the complainant is that opposite party No.3 remitted the token money deposited by the complainant on 10.4.2013 to opposite party No.2, but opposite party No.1 credit the said amount in the account of the complainant only on 24.7.2014 and was continuously debiting interest in the loan account of the complainant and thus has wrongly and illegally debited interest for the period from 10.4.2013 to 24.7.2014. Opposite party No.1 has pleaded that the amount in lump sum was received by Nodal Office, Ludhiana, but no detail regarding the names of the unsuccessful candidates/applicants was provided by GLADA to Punjab National Bank, Nodal Office, Ludhiana. The complainant has placed on the file copy of letter No.88 dated 21.7.2014 as Ex.C-2, written by opposite party No.3 to the complainant, vide which opposite party No.3 had provided information to the complainant sought by him under the Right To Information Act and in the said letter, it has been mentioned that the complainant did not win the (draw) allotment; they have transferred all allotment money for unsuccessful applicants for scheme to P.N.B., Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana on 10.4.2013, which was a Nodal Agency for all branches of P.N.B. in Punjab. The complainant has also placed on the file copy of letter No.COL:IAD:RTI:1705 dated 28.7.2014 as Ex.C-3, vide which opposite
C.C. No.404 of 2014 \\7//
party No.2 supplied information to the complainant sought by him under the Right To Information Act and in the said letter, opposite party No.2 has mentioned that their bank received the payment, but due to oversight, the amount remained pending at Branch Office, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana and by then the amount stands remitted to Branch Office, Tankawali, Ferozepur and subsequently credited in loan account of the complainant on 24.7.2014. Therefore, a perusal of the above referred to letters (Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3) clearly reveals that the amount of token money deposited by the complainant was remitted back by opposite party No.3 to opposite party No.2, being opposite party No.2 Nodal Agency for all branches of P.N.B. in Punjab and as per copy of statement of account Ex.C-4, an amount of Rs.1,53,902/- was credited in the account of the complainant by opposite party No.1 only on 24.7.2014 and opposite party No.1 had been debiting amount of interest accrued on the loan amount in the account of the complainant regularly. This fact has also been admitted by opposite party No.1. In letter dated 28.7.2014 Ex.C-3, opposite party No.2 has clearly admitted that their bank received the payment, but due to oversight, the amount remained pending at Branch Office, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana. Therefore, opposite party No.1 was entitled to charge interest on the loan amount at the agreed rate from the complainant only upto 10.4.2013 and opposite party No.1 has wrongly and illegally debited the amount of the
C.C. No.404 of 2014 \\8//
interest in the account of the complainant from 10.4.2013 to 24.7.2014, which is liable to be quashed. The complainant cannot be put to suffer on account of deficiency in service committed by opposite party Nos.1 and 2. No deficiency in service has been alleged or proved on the part of opposite party No.3. Therefore, no liability can be fastened upon opposite party No.3 regarding the matter in dispute.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted and opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to reverse the entries of interest amount and penalty/fine thereof, if any, made in the account of the complainant from 10.4.2013 to 24.7.2014. Further opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order is directed to be complied with jointly and severally by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, complaint against opposite party No.3 stands dismissed. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced 23.2.2015
(Gurpartap Singh Brar) President
(Gyan Singh) Member
