BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.684 of 2014

                                 Date of institution:          03.12.2014

                                                  Date of Decision:            09.06.2015

Suresh Kumar son of Budh Ram resident of village Jarout, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar.

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Punjab & Sind Bank through Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. 

2.     Shri Gurjit Singh, Branch Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Lalru, District SAS Nagar.

3.     Shri Gautam Kumar, Field Officer, Punjab & Sind Bank, Lalru, District SAS Nagar.

………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh, Member.

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

Ms. Mamta Malik, counsel for the OPs.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of following directions to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’):

(a)    to pay him Rs.90,000/- for mental and physical harassment.

(b)    to pay hi Rs.15,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 14.06.2013 till date on account of loss of crop.

(c)    to enhance the limit from Rs.2.00 lacs to Rs.7.00 lacs.

                The complainant’s case is that he mortgaged his land measuring 21 bigha 9-1/2 biswa as entered in jamabandi for the year 2005-2006 by way of mortgage deed dated 14.06.2011 registered in the office of Sub Registrar Dera Bassi vide Vasika No.4476 dated 05.01.2011.  The complainant filed application through Tehsildar/Halqa Patwari Jarout and vide letter dated 14.06.2013 (Ex.C-1)  the OPs sanctioned Bank’s Lien for KCC limit of Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. However, after sanctioning the limit, OP No.2 deleted the same due to obvious reasons whereas other similarly situated co-owners have been sanctioned the KCC limit from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-.  Despite numerous personal visits and representations Ex.C-3 and C-4 the OPs have not sanctioned the KCC limit. As per  Govt. policy no fee is charged for disbursement of lien on agriculture and only fee of Rs.1125/- is charged by the field officer for completing all the formalities but the complainant has been forced to bring three stamp papers of Rs.100/- each, Rs.6500/- and Rs.1000/- for miscellaneous expenses. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.             The OPs in the joint written statement have pleaded in the preliminary objections that the loan is not matter of right but it is the discretion of the bank. The bank has to do all the formalities as per norms and RBI guidelines. The complainant was asked  by OP No.2 to get the lien marked on the land to be mortgaged with the bank in the revenue record and a letter dated 14.06.2013 was given to the complainant but he failed to get the bank lien marked in the revenue record.  The loan account of  the complainant  was declared as N.P.A. on 28.03.2014 in view of RBI guidelines.  The complainant deliberately not regularized his loan account even after receiving number of reminders from the bank.  As the account has been declared as NPA, the bank cannot enhance the loan amount till its regularization.  On merits it is denied that the bank has sanctioned the enhancement of limit from Rs.3.00 lacs to Rs.5.00 lacs. The bank would sanction the enhanced limit only after entering of the charge in the revenue record and after regularization of account which has gone NPA.  It is also denied that they have imposed any fee deceitfully in misleading and illegal manner.  Numbers of loans have been sanctioned to the person who fulfilled the formalities according to bank norms. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-5.

4.             Evidence of the OPs consists of affidavit of Gurjit Singh their Branch Manager Ex.OP-1/1 and document Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments filed by them.

6.             Admittedly the complainant is holding cash credit limit account with the OP No.2 since 2011.  The complainant has approached the OPs on 25.07.2013 for extension of cash credit limit and the same was not granted to him. Thereafter, the complainant has filed a complaint against OP No.2 and 3 to OP No.1 on 25.07.2014 vide Ex.C-3. The said complaint has been duly attended to by OP No.1 vide Ex.C-4. The perusal of Ex.C-4 shows that after conducting enquiry into the complaint, OP No.1 requested the complainant to approach the branch with requisite papers and documents and complete the formalities for enhancement of KCC limit. It was found in the enquiry by OP No.1 that the complainant has not completed the formalities/documentation as required by OP No.2 for creating the bank lien in the revenue records for enhanced amount.  The grievance of the complainant that the OPs have not enhanced the limit of the complainant despite completing the formalities is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

7.             From the perusal of records, the complainant has not shown anywhere that he has completed all formalities and submitted the requisite documents to the bank as demanded vide Ex.C-4. Bald assertion in the complaint in the absence of any cogent evidence in this regard is of no help to the complainant. Since the complainant has failed to fulfill the requisites and formalities, therefore, the OPs are well within their right to sanction or decline or keep pending the issue of extension of cash credit limit of the complainant, as per rules. As such, we do not find any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

8.             Thus, the complaint being devoid of any merit is herby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

June 09, 2015.    

                                                                     (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

(Amrinder Singh)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

Member