Haryana

StateCommission

A/126/2016

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJIV SAINI - Opp.Party(s)

ARVIND RAJOTIA

25 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                  First Appeal No.126 of 2016

Date of Institution: 09.02.2016                                                             Date of Decision: 25.05.2016

 

 

Punjab National Bank, Branch office, Bilaspur, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.

…..Appellant

Versus

Rajiv Saini S/o Sh.Jai Pal, R/o Aamwala, P.O. & Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                      …..Respondent

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri Gunjan Gera proxy counsel for Mr.Arvind   Rajotia, Advocate counsel for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

          Punjab National Bank (in short “Bank”)-opposite party has preferred this appeal against the order dated November 13th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short “District Forum”), Yamuna Nagar.  

2.      Rajiv Saini (Complainant-respondent) alleged that he obtained loan of Rs.1,80,000/- from O.P. on 27.07.2010 after getting approval from the Animal Husbandry Department, Yamuna Nagar (In short “Department”) for purchasing five buffalos.  At the time of sanctioning loan department granted subsidy of Rs.29025/-.  The cheque of Rs.29025/- was  deposited  by the complainant on 05.4.2010 with O.P.  All the loan amount was cleared by the complainant.  He deposited Rs.30,000/- on 20.11.2013 with the O.P. and it had illegally shown Rs.38954/- as balance amount. He further submitted that O.P. did not adjust the subsidy amount of Rs.29025/-.  An amount of Rs.8640/- on account of insurance was debited wrongly on 08.01.2014 by the O.P as there was nothing due against him.  He further paid Rs.27800/- on 27.05.2014 and Rs.800/- on 11.06.2014 with O.P.

3.      O.P. was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 22.12.2014 by Learned District Forum.

4.      After hearing counsel for complainant, learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 13.11.2015 and directed is as under:-

“Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP Bank to adjust amount of Rs.29025/- at initial stage i.,e. at the time of disbursing of the loan or to pay interest on subsidy amount of Rs.29025/- at the same rate of interest charged by the OP bank from the complainant w.e.f. subsidy amount received by the OP Bank and this amount be adjusted prior to taking the insurance policy and then if the balance becomes zero then refund the entire excess amount to the complainant and further to refund an amount of Rs.8640/- on account of insurance charges with interest at the same rate of interest charged by the OP Bank from the complainant.  Further the OP Bank is directed to issue NOC (No Objection Certificate) to the complainant immediately  and OP Bank is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expense within a period  of 30 days otherwise complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this forum as per law.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, opposite party-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that bank received the subsidy amount on 05.04.2010 whereas the same was credited in the account of the complainant on 11.01.2014. The bank used this money without paying any interest whereas it was charging interest from the complainant on this amount. Had this amount been credited debited in the account of the complainant, he would not have paid the interest. In this way, the bank was getting benefit both ways at the cost of the complainant which cannot be permitted. The learned District Forum has rightly directed to adjust the interest, as mentioned above.  Findings of learned District forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. 

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

May 25th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.