Himachal Pradesh

Una

79/2012(Hmr)

Kamlesh Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Mool Raj Sharma

16 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM UNA
DISTRICT UNA (HP).
 
Complaint Case No. 79/2012(Hmr)
 
1. Kamlesh Kumari
W/o. Sh. Satish Kumar, R/o. Ward No. 1, Village Kot, PO & Tehsil Nadaun Hamirpur Hp
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. SBI
Branch Nadaun, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur HP 177001, through its Branch Manager
2. State Bank of India
Regional Office Div. No.3, Kasumpti Shimla 117009 (HP), through its Assistant General Manager
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. B.R. Chandel PRESIDENT
 
For the Complainant:Sh. Mool Raj Sharma, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Sh. R.K. Sharma, Advocate
 Sh. R.K. Sharma, Advocate
ORDER

O R D E R  :-( per Mr. B.R. Chandel, President )                      

                    The admitted facts of the complaint are that complainant Smt. Kamlesh Kumari applied for the grant of house loan in sum of Rupees 3,75,000/- before the opposite party No.1 which was duly sanctioned in her favour on 05-11-2005 and thereby the complainant executed agreement of loan Annexure R-5. As per agreement the complainant agreed to make repayment of the loan amount in

 

equal monthly instalments of Rupees 4550/- beginning from after the completion of the construction of the house or after 18 months of disbursement of first instalment of the loan whichever was earlier. The first instalment fell due in May 2007. The complainant mortgaged her land with the opposite party. But the complainant failed to make repayment of the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and as such the loan account of the complainant became ‘NPA’. When the complainant failed to make repayment of the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the opposite party took possession of the mortgaged property against which the complainant filed civil suit No. 15/2012 in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nadaun. In the said civil suit the complainant had filed an application under Order 39  Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC No. 509/2011 seeking interim injunction against the opposite parties, but the said application was dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nadaun, vide order dated 20-01-2012. Against the said order the complainant preferred civil miscellaneous Appeal No.08/2012 before learned District Judge, Hamirpur, which was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, on 01-06-2012 vide order Annexure R-6. The deposition made by Shri Anil Kumar Verma in his affidavit Annexure R-1 on behalf of the opposite party No.1 to the effect that the said civil suit filed by the complainant has been dismissed is not disputed on behalf of the complainant, as a result of which it stands proved that civil suit has also been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nadaun. The complainant moved an application Annexure R-7 for possession of mortgaged property before the opposite party No.1. The complainant also deposed an affidavit Annexure R-8. As per affidavit Annexure R-8 the complainant deposited Rupees 1,30,000/- upto 08-06-2011 and undertook to repay  remaining amount of loan within 5 months. She further deposed that if she failed to repay the whole of the remaining amount within the said specified time the opposite parties would be entitled to take back the possession of the mortgaged property. But even thereafter she has committed default in making repayment of the loan instalments and has opted to file the present complaint on 13-06-2012.

2.     In this complaint the complainant has claimed that the opposite parties be directed not to recover unjustified amount of Rupees 1,73,314/-  and to pay compensation of Rupees 50,000/- on the grounds that due to unavoidable circumstances she could not pay the loan instalment and the opposite parties have failed to show the receipt of Rupees 24,000/- on 23-09-2006, Rupees 7500/- on 29-03-2007 and Rupees 4500/- on 27-01-2010 and the opposite parties has further failed to explain as to how an amount of Rupees 63,975/-, 44,873/- and 28,486/- has been shown to have been debited on 08-06-2011, 11-07-2011 and 23-12-2011 respectively.

3.     The opposite parties have disputed the said claim and have set up the defence that the complainant has failed to make repayment of the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and in spite of undertaking given by her and the complainant is also guilty of suppression of material facts.       

4.     The complainant herself has admitted and it stands proved that the complainant has failed to make repayment of the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The opposite parties took possession of the mortgaged property on 27-05-2011 under Section 13 of the Secruitinization and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets  and Enforcement of the Security Interest Act, 2002. The complainant has failed to prefer appeal against the said action of the opposite parties to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Civil miscellaneous application No. 509/2011 filed by the complainant in Civil suit No. 15/2012 was dismissed by the learned Civil Jude, Senior Division, Nadaun, on 20-01-2012. The complainant preferred civil miscellaneous appeal No. 08/2012 which has been dismissed  by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, vide order Annexure R-6. The civil suit has also been dismissed. The factum of filing of civil suit by the complainant has not been disclosed in the complaint and as such the complainant is guilty of suppression of true and material facts which warrants outright dismissal  of her complaint. The complainant compromised the matter with the opposite parties, but failed to make repayment of the loan amount. The opposite parties have placed on record statements of loan account Annexure R-10 and Annexure R-11. The complainant has failed to prove that any entry in the said statement of accounts has been wrongly incorporated by the opposite parties. The complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. To the contrary, the complainant herself committed defaults in making repayment  of the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and is guilty of suppression and concealment of most material facts relating to her case, as a result of which the complaint deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost, but seeing the economical position of the complainant, this Forum is compelled not to impose such cost.

RELIEF:

        In view of the findings recorded above, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost, as per rules. The file, after its registration and due completion be consigned to the records.   

                                                           ANNOUNCED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT 

                                                           ON THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015

 

  

                                                                            (B.R. Chandel )

                                                                               President

 

 

 

                                                 (Th.Digvijay Singh)                    ( Sushma Sharma)

                                                          Member                                     Member

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. B.R. Chandel]
PRESIDENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.