BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR
C.C. No.320 of 2014 Date of Institution: 2.9.2014
Date of Decision: 27.1.2015
M/S P.S. Sons, through its Partner Hardeepak Singh, aged about 50 years, son of Pritam Singh, resident of Street No.2, Sunder Nagri, Abohar, Abohar-152116, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka.
....... Complainant
Versus
Punjab & Sind Bank, Circular Road, Abohar, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka, through its Chief Manager.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Parkash Makkar, Advocate
For the opposite party : Sh. Vipan Kumar Gupta, Advocate
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
S. Gyan Singh, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant firm had a C.C. limit account No.0273160000222 with the opposite party bank and the sanctioned limit was Rs.2,00,000/-. The account of the complainant
C.C. No.320 of 2014 \\2//
firm was regular. That on 10.3.2014, there was credit balance of Rs.4354.90p after adjusting the amount of Rs.3,70,000/- deposited by the complainant firm in his C.C. limit. Since the complainant did not want to continue his aforesaid C.C. account, he requested the opposite party to close the account and to pay the credit balance lying in the account and also to issue the No Due Certificate. While the opposite party issued the No Due Certificate to the effect that they have no objection if the mortgaged land is redeemed and confirming the settlement of the account, the opposite party did not pay the credit amount of Rs.4354.90 ps, and further an amount of Rs.415.73p has been debited in the account without any reason. The complainant is entitled to get back the amount of his credit balance of Rs.4354.90 ps with interest, but opposite party has refused to pay the same. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay Rs.4354.90ps along with interest @ 18% pr annum. Further a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been claimed as compensation for harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply to the complaint, wherein it has been pleaded that after adjusting an amount of Rs.3,70,000/-, an amount of Rs.415.13p was debited in the account of complainant on account of cash handling charges. An amount of
C.C. No.320 of 2014 \\3//
Rs.3939.17p was shown as the outstanding credit balance in the said account of complainant, which was actually not payable to the complainant. The complainant was told that the bank had to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the enforcement agency as their charges for taking necessary action against the complainant. The complainant was told that an amount of Rs.3939.17p was the outstanding credit balance in the account of the complainant, but the same will be paid to the enforcement agency against the payment of Rs.10,000/- payable by the bank from the account of the complainant. The bank will get this amount adjusted as lump-sum amount as the matter has been compromised. The complainant has no lien or right over the said amount of Rs.3939.17p. This amount was debited in the account of the complainant on 12.3.2014 and was transferred to the sundry account. On 24.3.2014, this amount was paid to the enforcement agency against proper signatures of the agent of the said enforcement agency. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/8 and closed evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also
C.C. No.320 of 2014 \\4//
gone through the file.
5. It is the admitted case of the parties that the complainant had a C.C. limit account No.0273160000222 with the opposite party bank for sanctioned limit of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the complainant had closed the above said C.C. account and No Due Certificate Ex.C-6 has been issued by the opposite party bank to the complainant. The grievance of the complainant is that at the time of closing the said account, there was credit balance of Rs.4354.90 paise in the said account, thereafter the opposite party debited an amount of Rs.415.73 paise without any reason and ultimately the opposite party has refused to pay the said amount to the complainant. The opposite party has pleaded that an amount of Rs.415.13 paise was debited in the account of the complainant on account of cash handling charges and as such only an amount of Rs.3939.17 paise was shown as outstanding credit balance in the account of the complainant, which was actually not payable to the complainant, as an amount of Rs.10,000/- was to be paid to the enforcement agency as their charges for taking actions against the complainant and the matter being compromised with the complainant, the said amount of Rs.3939.17 paise was paid to the enforcement agency on 24.3.2014 against proper signature of the agent of the said enforcement agency. But no evidence has been placed on the file by the opposite party that any agency, as alleged, was
C.C. No.320 of 2014 \\5//
engaged for taking any action against the complainant Even no name of any agency has been mentioned in the written reply by the opposite party. Moreover, No Due Certificate Ex.C-6 has already been issued by the opposite party to the complainant and this No Due Certificate was not subjected to any condition. In this certificate, it has been certified that CC limit for Rs.2,00,000/- only in the name of M/s P.S. Sons, Account No.02731600000222 has been adjusted full and final. There is nothing due towards him in the CC limit and property mortgaged by the bank vide Rapat No.1043 dated 4.7.2005 may be released. Therefore, the opposite party was not justified in declining payment of the outstanding credited amount in his above said account at the time of its closing. In this regard, reliance can also be placed on the precedent laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.2092 of 2012, titled as “State Bank of India Versus Om Parkash”, decided on 25.4.2013. As such, a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is made out. Statement of Account Ex.C-3 reveals that there was closing/credit balance of Rs.3939.17 paise in the account of the complainant as on 10.3.2014 i.e. after closure of the above said account. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the said amount of Rs.3939.17 paise along with interest.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is
C.C. No.320 of 2014 \\6//
accepted and the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3939.17 paise to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 10.3.2014 till realization. Further the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced
27.1.2015
(Gurpartap Singh Brar)
President
(Gyan Singh) Member
