BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.175 of 2021

      Date of Instt. 03.05.2021

      Date of Decision: 06.01.2023

1.       Manjinder Singh aged about 56 years S/o L. Ajit Singh

2.       Harjeet Kaur aged about 53 years W/o Majinder Singh

Both resident of 249/28 Sodal Road Shiv Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainants

Versus

1.       Rajesh Vidi, Manager, Punjab National Bank (previously         Oriental Bank of Commerce), Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar.

2.       Surinder Nath Nagar, Ex-Manager Oriental Bank of Commerce         now Punjab National Bank, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar       through OP No.1.

3.       Harvinder Singh Randhawa, Ex-Chief Manager, Regional Office,      Oriental Bank of Commerce now Punjab National Bank,       Jalandhar through OP No.1.

4.       Oriental Bank of Commerce, now Punjab National Bank, Bhagat      Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its Manager.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. J. S. Bal, Adv. Counsel for the Complainants.

                   Sh. Ashish Bhandari, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 to 4.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainants, wherein it is alleged that the complainants raised a Housing loan having account number 04036041000026 from the OP No.4 of Rs.13,00,000/-  in the month of April 2007 to be repayable in 180 months with moratorium 12 months i.e. in 168 EMI @ Rs.13827/- P. M. w. e. f. 31.05.2008 by equitable mortgaging of residence Property situated at 249/28 Sodal Road, Shiv Nagar Jalandhar i.e. total amount payable from 31/05/2008 to 30/04/2022 Rs.23,22,936/-. As per sanction letter, since then the complainants have been making regular monthly installment of loan as and when due. It is worth mentioning here that during moratorium period the borrowers/complainants are not bound to make a payment of installment but the complainants in good faith deposited during that Moratorium period more than Rs.1,13,000/- Approx. Further, it is worth to mention here that the complainants has made more than Rs 22,00,000/- till today. The complainants came to know and astonished that the OP No.2 and OP No.3 with connivance with each other and without assigning any reason knowingly with bad intention and ulterior motive and some personal interest classified the account of the complainants as non-performing asset (NPA) in the year 2013 and obtained the false and frivolous exparte decree from the Court of debt recovery tribunal, Chandigarh on the basis of false and frivolous and concocted story which caused humiliation, mental agony, harassment to the complainants in spite of repayment of regular installment per month till date. The decree obtained by OP No.2 and OP No.3, by giving false affidavit, which was never in the knowledge of the complainants and which came into knowledge of complainants in the month of January 2021 during the proceeding of civil case filed by the complainants against the OP No.4. In the month of January 2021, after coming to know that in spite of regular repayment of installment till date, complainants visited the OP No.1 and requested to make the above said account regular and also for classifying the account as non-NPA as the complainants were never defaulter in the making repayment of loan but the OP No.1 made the matter pending on the one pretext or the other. Further the complainants never denied the repayment of the said loan nor will deny in future till the last installment of the loan as per the agreement. It is worth mentioning here, the complainants has repaid the substantial portion of said housing loan more than Rs.22,00,000/- approximately. The complainants made many requests to the OP No.1 for the making the account regular and also making the account non- NPA but OP No.1 did not bother and made the matter pending on the one pretext or the other. After that the complainants got issued a legal notice on dated 11/03/2021 through their advocate to which OP No.1 instead of making the account regular and also classifying the said account as non-NPA, replied in false and frivolous manner. In fact, from the beginning, as per sanction letter/agreement, the complainants himself personally used to go the OP bank to deposit the monthly installment, but the OP never brought in the notice of complainants regarding the status of irregular of account and classified as NPA. Infact, the opposite party declared the account NPA in the year 2013 whereas the complainant was very much regular in paying the installment.

Installment payable from 31/05/2008 to 31/03/2013 = Rs.8,15,793/- Installment paid from 31/05/2008 to 31/03/2013 = Rs 9,14,535/-

                   Due to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OPs, the complainants suffered mental agony, harassment as well as lowering of reputation in the society and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the damages to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the Consumer Commission under Consumer Protection Act when the matter has already been finally decided by the competent court of jurisdiction i.e. Debts Recovery Tribunal, which has already passed recovery order against the complainants vide its judgment dated 7.9.15, vide which it was pleased to order the recovery of sum of Rs.11,21,117/- alongwith 10% simple interest p.a. on reducing balance with costs with effect from 1.3.13 till its recovery and till this date this order has not been challenged and has attained finality. Not only this, by suppressing and concealing the passing of aforesaid judgment against themselves the complainants have already filed suit for mandatory injunction claiming relief of damages, to the tune of Rs.20 Lacs, which is pending in the court of Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Civil Judge (JD), Jalandhar and is now fixed for 12.8-21. It is further averred that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint as the matter has already been decided by the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Tribunal vide its judgment dated 7.9.15 and the similar matter although not maintainable before Civil Court is still sub-judice before the Court of Sh.Sudhir Kumar, Civil Judge (JD), Jalandhar. It is further averred that the complainants have not come to the Commission with clean hands. They have concealed and suppressed true and actual facts from this Commission which could have disentitled them from filing the present complaint. The actual facts are that as stated earlier, the Debts Recovery Tribunal has already passed judgment dated 7.9.15 in O.A. No.322 of 2013 in the case titled as “Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Manjinder Singh and others”, vide which the Debts Recovery Tribunal has been pleased to order the recovery of Rs.11,21,117/- alongwith 10% simple interest p.a. alongwith costs w.e.f. 1.3.13 until its recovery, which has become final. Not only this, by concealing the facts the complainants also filed suit for mandatory injunction titled as “Manjinder Singh etc. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce” for damages of Rs.20 Lacs, which is pending in the Court of Sh. Sudhir Kumar, CJ (JD), Jalandhar and this suit is based on same facts as contained in present complaint, therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed straight away. It is further averred that the present complaint has been filed just to harass the OPs. The present complaint has been filed as the court of Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Civil Judge (JD), Jalandhar is already seized off the matter and is most likely to dismiss the suit filed by the complainants and the plaint filed by the complainants is going to be dismissed. The OPs have filed application for dismissal of the suit to which the complainants have no satisfactory answer. The present complaint is full of vendetta against the officials of the OP No.4 bank. The OPs No.1 to 3 have just performed their official duties, but they have been arrayed as opposite parties in their individual names with ulterior motive to brow-beat and harass them. On merits, the factum with regard to raising a housing loan by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by both the parties very minutely.

6.                It is admitted that the complainants raised a housing loan having account No.04036041000026 from OP No.4 for Rs.13,00,000/- in the month of April, 2007. As per the loan application Ex.C-1 and the sanctioned letter Ex.C-2, the loan was to be repayable in 180 months with moratorium of 12 months i.e. in 186 EMI @ Rs.13,827/- w.e.f. 31.05.2008. The grudge of the complainant is that the complainant has been making the regular payment of installments and during moratorium period, he was not bound to make payment of the installment, but he continued depositing the amount during the moratorium period also. He has deposited more than Rs.1,13,000/- during that period and till the filing of the present complaint, he has deposited about more than Rs.22,00,000/- of amount to repay the loan. The OPs have wrongly declared the complainant as NPA in the year 2013 without intimation to the complainant and have falsely got exparte decree from the DRT Chandigarh on the basis of false and frivolous story, whereas as per the record, the complainant has been making the payment regularly. The complainant has proved on record the copy of the decree Ex.C-3. He has also produced on record the copies of the statements of the accounts, showing that he has been making regular payments of installments.

7.                The contention of the ld. Counsel for the OP is that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands. He has concealed the fact of decree against him and the Commission has no jurisdiction to  pass any order as the DRT, Chandigarh  has finally decided the decree and has passed order of recovery against the complainant. It has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the OPs that the complainant is not entitled to any moratorium period as the decree has already been passed against him. Since, the complainant was defaulting in payment, therefore, his account was classified as NPA in the year 2013. The complainant was well within the knowledge of filing of recovery proceedings before DRT, Chandigarh, but he did not appear before that Court rather filed a civil suit in Civil Court and now he has come to the Commission and the Commission has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint.

8.                The main grudge of the complainant is that he was wrongly declared NPA, whereas he has been making regular payment. As discussed above, the obtaining of loan and sanctioning of loan is not disputed. The OPs have alleged that since he was in default in making the payment, therefore he was declared as NPA. So far as the point of jurisdiction is concerned. It is not disputed that the OPs have filed recovery proceedings before DRT Chandigarh on 21.03.2013 against the complainant and he was proceeded against exparte. The judgment was passed on 07.09.2015 and recovery orders were issued by the DRT, Chandigarh. In that case, it was alleged by the OPs that due to failure of the defendants to make regular payment, the account was declared NPA. This Commission is not going to pass any order regarding the recovery proceedings or the judgment passed by the DRT, Chandigarh nor the complainant has sought any relief regarding the judgment passed against him by the DRT, Chandigarh on 07.09.2015. The complainant has sought the relief that he was wrongly declared NPA and he has alleged unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on behalf of the OPs and that point is not regarding the recovery of any amount or restraining the OP from recovering any amount, if any, due. Therefore, this Commission has jurisdiction as the Commission is not going to pass any order regarding the proceedings done by the DRT or the order passed by DRT, Chandigarh.

9.                The complainant has proved on record the statement of account Ex.C-4. The relevant period is the year 2013 when the complainant was allegedly defaulting in making payment of installment because of which he was declared NPA. He was declared NPA in 2013. As per definition of NPA i.e. Non Performing Asset, is a classification used by financial institutions for loans and advances on which the principal is passed due and on which no interest payments have been made for a period of time. In general, loans become NPAs when they are outstanding for 90 days or more. The loan is classified as NPA when it is not being repaid by the borrower. As per Ex.C-4, the complainant has been making the payment in the account regularly from the date of obtaining loan. As per statement of account, the complainant has been depositing the amount of installment and even of interest regularly. This shows that the complainant has been making regularly payment of rupees more than Rs.10,000/- per month, sometimes it is Rs.20,000/-, sometimes, it is Rs.13,000 and sometimes it is Rs.14,000/-, meaning thereby  that as per Ex.C-2, the EMI i.e. @ was Rs.13,827/- and the same was being deposited by the complainant as per Ex.C-4. From the statement of account, it cannot be said that there was any default in making the payment regularly for 90 days, even for 60 days, therefore as per the meaning of declaring the loan account as NPA, there should be default in making the payment of installments or interest, but as per this statement of account, there is no default. Ex.C-7 shows that the complainant had asked the OP reasons for declaring his account No.04036041000026 NPA without any reason and fault and in reply to that application, it was mentioned that sine he has refused to sign balance confirmation letter pertaining to his account No.04036041000026 due to which legal action was taken. The complainant has made representations to the OP that since he has been making regular payment, but he has been declared without reason and fault as NPA. Ex.C-8 is the account statement of complainant’s account, which is in continuation of Ex.C-4. Perusal of Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-8 show that even during the period of 2013, when the account was declared NPA, the penal interest charged for late depositing the amount from time to time was Rs.4, 3, 5 and 17 and so on but it was never in thousands. So, it cannot be said that he was in default in making the payment regularly for more than 30, 60 or 90 days, when the account was declared NPA. The OP has filed on record the copy of the plaint Ex.OP-2, which shows that the complainant had filed a suit for mandatory injunction and damages against the OPs for taking excess amount from the complainant. As per the submission of the complainant, the same has been withdrawn. As per Annexure-A, the OP has sought the permission from competent authority to reverse the excess interest of Rs.3,68,070/- charged from the complainant, in the account of the complainant and as per account statement, on 19.05.2016, the amount of Rs.50,597/- has been credited by the OP and as per submission of the complainant on 18.06.2022, the amount of Rs.3,75,516/- was credited. This shows that the excess interest was charged from the complainant and there is no default of the complainant in repaying the monthly installment till the year 2013 when the account of complainant was declared NPA. There is no document on the record to prove that any notice was ever issued to the complainant to be regular, if he was in default of making payment of installment nor he was ever called upon to explain the reason for default, if any. Nothing has been proved by the OP to support their contention that the complainant was in default in making the payment of installment or interest regularly for more than 30, 60, 90 days. It has not been proved that because of his default, he was declared NPA. There are no allegations that OP No.1 to OP No.3 have conspired to declare the account of complainant NPA or they have intentionally declared his account NPA with any enmity. So far as OP No.4 is concerned, there is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.4 as his account has wrongly been declared NPA. Therefore, the order declaring the NPA is held illegal and wrong.

10.              In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to declare and consider the account of complainant regular since the day of declaring the account as NPA in the year 2013. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation including litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

06.01.2023         Member                          Member           President