| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR. Complaint No.40 of 2017 Date of Instt. 14.12.2017 Date of Decision: 09.03.2021 Raj Kumar Suri aged 50 years S/o Sh.Om Parkash Suri R/o 275, Gupta Colony, Jalandhar City. ..........Complainant Versus Punjab & Sind Bank, New Subzi Mandi Branch, Jalandhar through its Branch Incharge. ….….. Opposite Party Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act. Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh, President Smt. Jyotsna, Member COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: For Complainant : Sh. Anand Pandit, Advocate For OP : Sh. A.P.S. Pathania, Advocate Order Kuljit Singh,President The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein he alleged that he is having bank account No.07021200020157 with OP. He had availed a loan of Rs.5,50,000/- from OP in February, 2012. On 28.09.2016, he went to OP and requested that he wants to clear his car loan account and he has got printed statement of his said car loan account and he observed that the charges levied are very much on higher side and since the extra charges are too much, these should be remitted and he be permitted to deposit the balance amount of loan so as to close his said car loan account. But Branch advised to contact their Zonal Manager. On her advice, he went to Zonal office of bank but in the first instance the PA of said Zonal Manager refused to get him meet the Zonal Manager, however on insisting request, he allowed him to meet the Zonal Manager, who on hearing him telephoned the concerned branch Manager and after talking to her the branch manager advised him to get his case recommended from Branch Manager of his bank and he again went to branch and requested Branch Manager to recommend his case. But Branch Manager got angry on me and started shouting and behaving him very rudely and said that she obliges only after taking money and if he have to get his car loan cleared he will have to pay her Rs.15,000/- to settled his case otherwise she cannot help. On hearing this, he asked her that he will complain to higher authorities, but she flatly refused his request and warned him to do whatever he wanted to do and that no one can harm her. On account of said, he was constrained to address a communication/representation to Finance Minister of India which is still pending. Lastly prayer has been made that OP be directed to pay Rs.1 Lac to complainant for harassment and further to pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP and accordingly, OP appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; it is admitted that complainant obtained a car loan for Rs.5,50,000/- from OP for purchase of Hyundai I20 bearing Registration No.PB08-BZ-0151 and said loan was obtained by him in the month of February 2012 and his wife Seema Suri is the guarantor in said loan transaction. They are jointly and severally liable to repay the loan amount. Thereafter, complainant did not repay the loan amount and an amount of Rs.1,75,175.40 was pending outstanding alongwith interest and expenses up till September 2016 and in this regard the bank has initiated the recovery proceedings under Section 13(2) of Sarfaesi Act 2002 against moveable property hypothecated with the Bank. The notice dated 29.09.2016 was issued upon the complainant and his guarantor to repay the entire loan amount as his loan was declared as NPA on 31.03.2015. But the complainant has utilized the loan for his own purpose, using the vehicle hypothecated with answering OP and intentional complainant is not repaying the loan amount, hence his loan is categorized as defaulter; earlier on same cause of, complainant has filed a similar complaint against answering OP. As such, the present complaint is barred. In all the complaints which the complainant has made to higher bank authorities, Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, Finance Minister and other Departments against the Branch Manager, but the complainant has given a different story in all the complaint, which speaks the conduct of complainant; complainant has already claimed the compensation and damages in the similar complaint pending before this Forum on same cause of action; complainant has alleged some facts which requires detailed evidence and in summary proceedings before this Forum, the allegations of demanding the money, fraud, cheating etc are to be decided by Civil Court by calling detailed evidence; Saving bank account of complainant bearing No.0721000020949 was marked as lien of bank and amount of Rs.92,143/- has been transferred towards the repayment of loan amount as the charge of bank by claiming the right of set off being both the accounts in the same name and customer ID. On 30.09.2016, the balance in saving bank account was Rs.1,53,543.60 and complainant visited branch for payment of Rs.1,50,000/- after banking hours and when his cheque was under process the complainant was made aware that he has to come on next day for the clearance of same and was also requested that he has to make repayment of loan amount as he is intentionally delaying the repayment of complainant bank time and again even on repeated requests and initiating process under SARFAESI Act but the complainant instead of listening to the requests of bank officials, filed numerous false complaints just to involve them in unnecessary litigation. He was having sufficient balance in his account but he intentionally is reluctant not to make payment of the loan amounts; complainant has no locus standi; complaint is estopped under principles of estoppel; complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merits; it is admitted that complainant is having saving account with OP and another car loan account of complainant and said loan account is irregular and non functional and has been declared NPA but complainant is not repaying the loan amount intentionally. It is denied that branch Manager has demanded Rs.15,000/- to settle case. Other averments of complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. In order to prove their respective version, the counsel for the parties produced on the file his respective evidence. We have heard the arguments of the parties and also gone through case file carefully. The counsel for complainant argued that complainant has obtained a loan of Rs.5,50,000/- from OP in February 2012, the complainant want to fourclose the said loan account but OP because of their corrupt practices did not accede to request of complainant to this effect. OP denied that complainant had not made any request for settlement but OP in reply itself said that they had not recommended his case to higher authorities both statements given by OPs are different. But on 28.09.2016, complainant went to BM and requested to clear the loan amount as he observed that the extra charges are levied upon him and he requested to remit that amount. He went to ZM and ZM telephone BM. Complainant again went to BM but she flatly refused to settle the case and demanded for Rs.15,000/- for settlement. Complainant is not making any false complaint on 30.09.2016 visited the bank for payment of Rs.1,50,000/- and when his cheque was under process the complainant was asked to come on next day. On the other hand, OP has argued that complainant obtained a car loan for Rs.5,50,000/- from OP for purchase of Hyundai I20 bearing Registration No.PB08-BZ-0151 and said loan was obtained by him in the month of February 2012 and his wife Seema Suri is the guarantor in said loan transaction. They are jointly and severally liable to repay the loan amount. Thereafter, complainant did not repay the loan amount and an amount of Rs.1,75,175.40 was pending outstanding alongwith interest and expenses up till September 2016 and in this regard the bank has initiated the recovery proceedings under Section 13(2) of Sarfaesi Act 2002 against moveable property hypothecated with the Bank. The notice dated 29.09.2016 was issued upon the complainant and his guarantor to repay the entire loan amount as his loan was declared as NPA on 31.03.2015. But the complainant has utilized the loan for his own purpose. We have gone through the record of case filed and it is transpired that the complainant already filed consumer complaint No.493 of 2016 which decided on 23.04.2019, vide which the complainant had alleged the on 30.09.2016, he visited the bank for withdrawal of Rs.1,50,000/- vide cheque No.513243. In the present complaint, the complainant has claimed that he wanted to foreclose his loan account which is running with the OP. From perusal of account statement Ex.C-2, payment of some of instalments is not regular. Moreover, from the pleading of the both the parties are required to settle the loan account in dispute. It is also submitted that loan account of complainant become NPA due non-payment of regular premium. Accordingly, in view of abovesaid discussion, to settle the dispute and to met with the end of justice, as well as taking lenient view, this complaint is disposed of with direction to complainant to pay outstanding loan amount as Ex.C-2 = Ex.OP-2 alongwith. Further, OP is directed to waive off extra charges levied in the account of complainant and foreclosed car loan account of complainant. Further, the OP is directed to provide NOC and form 35 to complainant after closing said account. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM: 9thDay of March, 2021
(Kuljit Singh) President (Jyotsna) Member | |
