BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 256 of 2018                                                     

                                                      Date of Institution         :    17.10.2018

                                                          Date of Decision           :    24.04.2019

Bhagwan Dass son of Shri Mahla Ram aged 50 years resident of gali No.6, Kirti Nagar Begu Road, Sirsa Tehsil & District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus

1.State Bank of India Branch at Suratgarhia Chowk, Rania Bazar, Sirsa through its Branch Manager.

2.State Bank of India, registered office at State Bank Bhagwan Madame Cama Marg, Mumbai-400021.

  ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986

Before:       SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT

SH.ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER

                   MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………MEMBER

Present:      Sh.Sandeep Kamboj, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.R.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for OPs.

ORDER

                   Brief facts, of the complaint are that the Ops had sanctioned a house loan facility of Rs.5 lacs to the complainant, after verifying all the furnished documents, vide loan account No.35055969743, subject to repayment of the loan installments as per regulations of the Ops.  The complainant deposited the installments in time and the delayed installments were charged by the Ops with penal charges. The complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- approximately but despite that the Ops have levied heavy penalty charges  and even there was no reduction qua the principal amount of loan, therefore, the complainant decided to clear the loan amount by way of sale of his house. The bank had disclosed the total dues of Rs.4,45,788/-. The sale of the house was with the prior permission of the Ops and subject to condition that the whole of the sale consideration would be transferred in the saving bank account of the complainant and it was also assured that after the deduction of the due loan amount, the complainant would withdraw the remaining amount.  After the transfer of sale consideration of Rs.6 lacs in the saving bank, the Ops have deducted the excess amount i.e. Rs.506646/- instead of earlier disclosed amount of Rs.445788/- and also set hold/cease the saving bank account No.2017109585 of the complainant despite issuing of certificate to the effect that  The loan amount of Rs.5 lac granted to Bhagwan Dass vide loan account No.35055969743 has been liquidated on 02.08.2018 and also specifically undertook that there is no outstanding pending in the said account. Since the Ops have received the due loan amount, therefore, they have no right to set hold/cease the saving bank account of the complainant. It has been further averred that whole of the documents including the original blank signed cheques are still lying with the Ops. The complainant has requested the bank to release his saving account from set holding the same and allow the complainant to use his own account but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2.       On notice Ops appeared and field their joint reply wherein it has been submitted that the complainant had mortgaged his residential house with the bank at the time of obtaining of loan facility of Rs.5 lacs. The complainant had failed to pay the amount regularly inspite of repeated demands, as such an amount of Rs.4,92,238/- became due against him. The bank had started recovery proceedings and had issued a notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act on 26.06.2017 which was duly received by the complainant but the complainant could not pay the said amount within 60 days, therefore, the bank had issued notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act.  The possession of the house was also taken by the OP-bank with the permission and help from DM, Sirsa under the above said and proceedings for sale of the said property were also initiated.  It has been further submitted that the complainant had approached the bank for compromise, therefore, he was allowed to deposit the amount due in the account with the bank and proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were postponed. Thereafter, the complainant deposited all the amount due in the loan account and the expenses incurred by the bank in the recovery proceedings. The Ops have recovered the loan amount in accordance with the provisions of law and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Other contentions have been contorverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3. Thereafter, the parties have led their respective evidence.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

5. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint and in support of his pleas, he has placed on record documents such as statement of account Ex.C1, no dues certificate issued by the bank Ex.C2 and copy of pass book Ex.C3. On the other hand, the Ops have furnished the affidavit of Sh.Nikhil Manchanda, Branch Manager Ex.R1 wherein he has deposed all the facts mentioned in the reply besides tendering documents such as Notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act, notice to borrower Ex.R3 and statement of account of complainant Ex.R4.

6. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant has taken house loan from Ops and the complainant had sold out his house and deposited Rs.6 lacs in his account      maintained with the Ops and the bank after deducting the outstanding amount had kept a sum of Rs.94854/- on hold with them, which has not been paid by the bank due to the reasons best known to them which clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of bank.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops has strongly contended that the account of the complainant was declared NPA, as a result of which, the bank had started proceedings under SARFAESI Act and even the possession of the house was also taken and thereafter by mutual consent of the parties, the complainant had sold the house and deposited the sale proceeds of the house with the bank. The bank had settled the account of the complainant and thereafter, the No Dues Certificate was issued in favour of the complainant and now nothing is due against the complainant and even no amount of the complainant is pending towards the bank. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the Ops has produced the copy of statement of account, copy of tax invoice to show the amount i.e.Rs.54,500/- spent as Enforcement & Recovery service.  

8. The perusal of the record reveals that it is undisputed fact between the parties that the complainant had raised house loan from the bank and the same become NPA, as a result of which the bank had proceeded under SARFAESI Act and the possession of the property had also taken by the bank under the SARFAESI Act. Bank and deputed security guards to take care of the property through the professional agency. As per contention of the learned counsel for the bank, they have spent Rs.54500/- on account of possession charges and Rs.42856/- on account of security charges. The copy of statement of account, which has been produced by the bank, during the course of arguments reflects that after adjusting all the payment, which was to recover by the bank from the complainant, had debited the amount in the account of the complainant and the closing balance has been shown as NIL.  Learned counsel for the complainant has repeatedly contended that more than Rs.94,000/- are still lying with the bank, which the bank is liable to pay to the complainant after adjusting all the payments made by the bank.

9.  It is also admitted fact on record that the bank has issued No Dues Certificate to the complainant by which, it has been reported that no amount is due against the complainant but on the other part the complainant is claiming certain amount due against the bank which has been allegedly not paid by the bank. So, it will be in the fitness of things if present complaint is partly allowed with a direction to the bank to re-examine and overhaul the account of the complainant in the presence of complainant.

10.     In view of the above discussion, we partly allow this complaint and direct the Ops-bank to overhaul the loan account of the complainant in his presence after serving a 7 days prior notice and thereafter to settle the account and, if any, amount is found due against the bank, the same shall be paid within 15 days, from the settlement of the account to the complainant under receipt. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.   

Pronounced in open Forum:                                         President,

Dated: 24.04.2019                                              District Consumer Disputes

                                                                           Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                   Member                         Member                                                              

                   DCDRF, Sirsa           DCDRF, Sirsa