BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 153 of 2019
Date of Institution : 27.03.2019.
Date of Decision : 19.02.2020.
Robin Mehta Advocate, aged 41 years son of Shri Madan Lal Mehta, resident of Gali Telianwali, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Chakkan Branch, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………..…… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The case of complainant, in brief, is that one Mr. Jodh Raj Meena, Branch Manager of op bank made a telephonic call to the complainant in the month of October, 2018 and stated that grandmother of complainant namely Smt. Kishni Devi (since deceased) had availed crop loan under KCC scheme from the Bank in the year 2007 and requested the complainant being legal heir of Smt. Kishni Devi to make the payment of outstanding loan amount. He also stated that he has already obtained necessary approval from the higher authorities of the bank to settle this loan account under one time settlement/ compromise. That complainant agreed to the said request of Mr. Meena for settlement. It is further averred that thereafter, one Mr. Chamkor Singh an employee of op bank visited the house of complainant and settled the said loan account of Smt. Kishni Bai and calculated a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as full and final settlement and he also gave in writing to the complainant that this amount is being calculated as one time settlement. At that time, Mr. Chamkor Singh received a sum of Rs.50,000/- in cash from complainant on 11.10.2018 and the remaining amount was agreed to be paid on or before 13.1.2019. That in the first week of January, 2019, the complainant requested Mr. Meena on his mobile to receive the remaining settled amount but he replied that he will inform him as and when the remaining amount is to be paid by complainant as he has not received the approval from the higher authorities of the bank. The complainant was highly surprised and astonished to hear this because he had assured him about obtaining prior approval from the higher authorities and so he lodged a protest with him in this regard but he did not pay any heed to the same. That thereafter, the complainant approached Mr. Meena on many occasions and requested for accepting the remaining settled amount but he refused for the same. The complainant is still ready and willing to make payment of remaining settled amount in the loan account of his grand mother. That the opposite party by its act and conduct is indulged in unfair trade practice and has committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant and thereby has put the complainant to unnecessary harassment. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, suppression of material facts, estoppal and non impleading of all legal heirs of Smt. Kishni Devi. On merits, it is submitted that Smt. Kishni Devi wife of Sh. Narayan Dass and Sh. Robin Mehta son of Sh. Madan Lal Mehta residents of village Alikan have availed financial limit of Rs.3,00,000/- as per KCC scheme from op bank on 25.9.2007. Smt. Kishani Devi mortgaged her land measuring 133 kanals 9 marlas situated at village Alikan as security for the above said loan amount vide mortgage deed no.4743 dated 12.9.2017 duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Sirsa and a rapat no.34487 dated 21.9.2007 has been entered in the revenue record. It is further submitted that op bank has legal right to recover the outstanding amount from the legal heirs of borrower by way of sale of mortgage land of Smt. Kishani Devi. The op bank has filed a petition for recovery of Rs.3,84,771.64 under Section 8 of Haryana Agri Credit and Miscellaneous Act titled as Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank vs. Nand Lal etc. on 25.10.2016 which is pending in the Court of SDO (Civil), Sirsa being prescribed authority for recovery of outstanding amount and said petition is pending for 20.8.2019 for summoning of respondent. The complainant has also been impleaded as respondent no.2 (ii) in that petition. Moreover, complainant has approached to the officials of op for settlement of matter. It is further submitted that complainant has approached to Chamkaur Singh to settle the amount to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- out of which he paid Rs.50,000/- and promised to pay remaining amount till 13.1.2019 but has not paid this amount to op bank till 13.1.2019 nor submitted any request letter for settlement. It is further submitted that complainant has leveled false allegations against the officials of the Bank and he may appear before SDO (Civil), Sirsa in said recovery petition and may take his defence there. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
5. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished copy of letter dated 11.10.2018 Ex.C1, copy of translation of conversation between him and Manager on telephone Ex.C2, Ex.C3, CD Ex.C4, copy of statement of account Ex.C5, copy of account ledger inquiry Ex.C6. On the other hand, op has furnished affidavit of Sh. Jodh Raj Meena, Branch Manager as Ex.R1, copy of letter Ex.R2, copy of application Ex.R3, copy of application for agricultural credit Ex.R4, copy of hypothecation agreement Ex.R5, copy of mortgage deed Ex.R6, copy of legal notice Ex.R7, copy of balance and security confirmation letter Ex.R8, Ex.R9, copy of legal notice Ex.R10, copy of account ledger inquiry Ex.R11 and copy of application under Section 8 of the Haryana Agriculture Credit Operation for recovery Ex.R12.
6. Admittedly, Smt. Kishni Devi wife of Naryana Dass grand mother of complainant and present complainant Sh. Robin Mehta had availed financial limit of Rs.3,00,000/- as per KCC scheme from op bank on 25.9.2007 and Smt. Kishni Devi had mortgaged her land measuring 133 kanal 9 marlas situated at village Alikan as security for repayment of above said loan vide registered mortgage deed. The above said loan account of complainant alongwith Smt. Kishni Devi was irregular, as a result of which a mutual understanding had arrived at between the parties for settlement of the loan amount. As per averments made in the complaint, one Chamkor Singh an official of the op bank had approached the complainant for one time settlement of the loan account and an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was settled as full and final settlement out of which Rs.50,000/- was paid on 11.10.2018 and remaining amount was to be paid on or before 13.1.2019. As per allegations of complainant, he made his all best efforts to pay balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in order to honor the settlement which was arrived at between parties, but however, bank authority did not receive the payment and they resiled from the settlement. The complainant has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has specifically deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and he has further deposed that he will still ready and willing to pay balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which was to be paid by him on or before 13.1.2019.
7. The perusal of evidence of op reveals that op has furnished affidavit of Shri Jodh Raj Meena, Branch Manager of op bank as Ex.R1 who has categorically deposed that complainant had approached to Chamkaur Singh to settle the amount to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- out of which he paid Rs.50,000/- and promised to pay remaining amount till 13.1.2019.
8. The bone of contention between the parties is qua payment of Rs.3,00,000/- which was to be paid by complainant on or before 13.1.2019. As per contention of complainant, bank authority did not receive payment and as per contention of op, the complainant did not pay amount as agreed by him. It is undisputed fact between the parties that there is outstanding balance of more than Rs.3,00,000/- against the complainant, but however, complainant is ready to pay Rs.3,00,000/- which he was required to pay on or before 13.1.2019. It will be in the fitness of things, if present complaint is allowed and op bank is directed to receive remaining settled amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with prevailing rate of interest.
9. In view of above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to receive an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- alongwith agreed rate of interest which is prevalent since 13.1.2019 on the KCC account and complainant is directed to deposit this amount with interest within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order but in case payment is not deposited by complainant due to any reason best known to him, the bank shall be at liberty to recover amount from complainant as per bank rules in accordance with law. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:19.02.2020. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
