DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/010/86 of 8.2.2010 Decided on: 10.9.2010 Gurcharan Singh son of Sh.Birsa Singh, resident of Village Kamaspur,P.O.Rajala, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus State Bank of India, Branch Kularan, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala through its Branch Manager. ----------Opposite party. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.Inderjit Singh, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh. Gurnam Singh, Advocate For opposite party: Sh.H.S.Mandair, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Gurcharan Singh has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite party fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint. 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this:- That the complainant is having account No.1140563570 in the bank of opposite party and the complainant took loan amount of Rs.245000/- from the opposite party i.e. State Bank of India, Village Kularan, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala and is regularly paying the installments alongwith interest to the bank. That the total loan amount was paid to the bank on 19.11.2007 by the complainant and nothing is lying as due against the complainant till date. The loan account of the complainant was closed. Now the officials of the bank are demanding Rs.56000/- as balance in the account of complainant. That when the complainant asked to the bank manager to give him the clearance certificate of the said loan amount, then they refused him and asked to deposit the balance amount of Rs.56000/-in the bank. The complainant also showed the statement of the account to the Branch Manager but he refused to issue the clearance certificate of the loan amount to the complainant and threatened the complainant with dire consequences. That the threatened action of the opposite party is illegal, null and void and against the bank rules and regulations. The complainant has already deposited the whole loan amount in the bank. So the question to deposit Rs.56000/- does not arise. That the complainant made several requests to the opposite party to issue the clearance certificate of the said loan amount to the complainant, but opposite party refused to issue the clearance certificate. That the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and tension due to the illegal demand of the bank of the opposite party, as such he is entitled for a compensation of Rs.10000/-.Hence this complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who appeared and filed the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant obtained agricultural loan in the sum of Rs.245000/-and crop loan in the sum of Rs.45000/- totaling Rs.290000/-. It is wrong that the complainant had been paying the installments regularly. In fact the loan was rephrased as the complainant was not paying the same in time and as per the agreement. As such, the amount of Rs.41793/- became overdue upto 28.8.2004 and in order to facilitate the borrower and also to avoid the borrower from penal interest the Bank had rephrased the account by opening anew account bearing No.0157206068100 dated 28.8.2004 for Rs.41793/- and the same was credited to the borrower’s old account and thereafter the complainant depositing Rs.15000/- in the rephrased account on 25.11.2006 and nothing thereafter. The account was never closed and the opposite party is entitled to recover the entire outstanding amount against the complainant amounting to Rs.52701.20P alongwith interest w.e.f.1.5.2009 till realization. The complainant has not paid the outstanding amount due against him. As such, the question of issuing clearing certificate does not arise. The opposite party is entitled to recover the outstanding amount from the complainant by filing recovery suit in the civil court. The opposite party is entitled to the amount lying outstanding against the complainant as per the bank rules. As such the complainant is liable to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.52701.20 plus interest outstanding against the complainant upto date. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and has prayed that complaint be dismissed. 4. The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record. 5. The parties have filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The case of complainant is that he took loan amount of Rs.245000/- from the opposite party and is regularly paying the installments alongwith interest to the bank. It is also the case of the complainant that the total loan amount was paid to the bank on 19.11.2007 and nothing is due against him and the loan account was closed. It is also the case of the complainant that now the officials of the bank are demanding Rs.56000/- as balance. It is also the case of the complainant that Branch Manager of the bank threatened him with dire consequences and that the threatened action of the opposite party is illegal, null and void and against the bank rules and regulations. 7. Whereas the case of opposite party is that the complainant obtained agricultural loan of Rs.245000/-and crop loan of Rs.45000/- and as the complainant was not paying the installment of loan regularly as such, the amount of Rs.41793/- became overdue upto 28.8.2004 and in order to facilitate the borrower and also to avoid the borrower from penal interest it (Bank) had rephrased his account by opening a new account No.0157206068100 dated 28.8.2004,Ex.R4 for Rs.41793/- i.e. over due amount and the same was credited to the borrower’s old account. The complainant, thereafter deposited Rs.15000/- in the rephrased account on 25.11.2006 and nothing thereafter. It is also the case of opposite party that it is entitled to recover the entire outstanding amount against the complainant amounting to Rs.52201.20 alongwith interest w.e.f.1.5.2009 till realization. 8. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. 9. The complainant in support of his case has placed on record receipts, Ex.C2. The perusal of these receipts would show that the complainant had deposited Rs.49131/-, Rs.48593/-, Rs.51000/- and Rs.49500/-only meaning thereby in all the complainant deposited Rs.1,98,224/- Admittedly the complainant had taken the loan of Rs.245000/- from the opposite party, meaning thereby the complainant has not repaid the entire loan amount to the opposite party. The perusal of the account, Ex.R2 of the complainant would show that an amount of Rs.41793/- was overdue on 28.8.2004.The perusal of the record further shows that the opposite party rephrased the account of the complainant by opening a new account, Ex.R4 dated 28.8.2004 for Rs.41793/-.The account, Ex.R4 further shows that the complainant deposited only Rs.15000/- in the rephrased account on 25.11.2006 and nothing thereafter. The account, Ex.R4 further shows that an amount of Rs.52201.20 alongwith interest is outstanding against the complainant w.e.f.1.5.2009.So the contention of the complainant that he has repaid the entire loan amount is falsified by the account statement, Ex.R4. It is very much clear that the amount of Rs.52201.20 + interest is still outstanding against the complainant and the opposite party is entitled to recover the outstanding amount from the complainant. 10. In view of our above discussion, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint merits dismissal and is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated:10.9.2010. President Member
| | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | | 
