Punjab

Sangrur

CC/98/2015

Balwant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBOP - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rohit Jain

04 Aug 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                     Complaint no. 98

                                                                     Instituted on:  02.03.2015

                                                                     Decided on:    04.08.2015

 

Balwant Singh son of Shri Gamdoor Singh, resident of village Bhullran, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.     

                                                                                     …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

1.     State Bank of Patiala through Branch Manager, Branch Moharana, Tehsil Malerkotla.

2.     State Bank of Patiala, through its Chief Manager, ADB Branch, Malerkotla.

                                   ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES  :     Shri Sat Paul Sharma, Advocate                     

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                                   

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Balwant Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he has a saving account with the OP bank  and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-  is lying in that account.  Kesar Singh son of Mehar Singh  obtained a car loan from the bank  and complainant stood guarantor for  Kesar Singh against  the said car loan only.  The complainant has received a letter from the OPs wherein it had been wrongly mentioned that  complainant stood as guarantor for Kesar Singh, due and owing  to the bank is to the tune of Rs.15,88,492/- . The complainant requested the  OP No.1 to honour  the voucher but the OP No.1 flatly refused to honour the said  cheque  and told the complainant  that unless and until car loan of Kesar Singh is not paid/ cleared, no amount can be withdrawn from the account of the complainant  with State Bank of Patiala, Branch Moharana. The complainant requested the OPs that if  Kesar Singh failed  to make the payment, even in that case, they can hold the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-  in the account of the complainant. The complainant has alleged that the OP No.1  without any reason withheld  the amount of the complainant lying  in the saving account.  The complainant was dire in need of money and he was forced  to get loan of Rs.50,000/-  from his friend on pronote and receipt @2% interest  per annum on 25.01.2015. The OPs without any reason and base issued wrong and illegal notice dated 09.12.2014. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to pay Rs.75000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant and amount of Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability, jurisdiction and cause of action have been taken up. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has saving account with OP No.1. It is submitted that the OP No.2 sent a notice dated 09.12.2014 under Section 13(2)  of SARFAESI Act  to the complainant  and informed  that Kesar Singh has failed to pay the loan installments.  It has been asserted that  the complainant being guarantor as well as Kesar Singh being borrower never deposited the outstanding of the car loan nor gave any reply of the notice.  It is admitted that the complainant presented withdrawal voucher of Rs.50,000/-  which was not honored.  The OP no.2 ‘HOLD’ the account of the complainant being  guarantor of car loan of Kesar Singh.  It is denied that the complainant  was forced  to get loan of Rs.50,000/-  from his friend  on interest at  the rate of 2% per annum on 25.01.2015 by way of pronote and receipt.  It is denied that there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-16 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered document Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-25 and closed evidence.

4.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the main controversy arose on 07.01.2015 when the OP number 1  declined to make the payment of Rs.50,000/-  to the complainant on the ground that the account has been put to hold by State Bank of Patiala, Branch Moharana. The document in this regard is Ex.C-3. On this the complainant approached the OPs to withdraw the same as his guarantee  is only for Rs.2,50,000/-  and OPs cannot freeze  the account for Rs.5,00,000/- .

5.             The OPs replied  the legal notice of the complainant on 27.01.2015  and had confirmed  that the liability  of the complainant was for Rs.2,50,000/- vide document Ex.C-8, so this clearly shows that the OPs are deficient in service as they have freezed the account of the complainant for Rs.5,00,000/-whereas  the liability of the  complainant was for Rs.2,50,000/- .So, vide document Ex.C-8  the OPs had  withdrawn all other notices to the complainant for excess amount of Rs.2,50,000/- .

6.             The complainant has also  placed on record document Ex.C-9 which is pronote to prove his version  that as he was in dire need  of the money and due to non- payment of the OPs he had to borrow the amount of Rs.50,000/-  from someone  in order to perform  financial obligation  as the bank has refused to make the payment on 7.1.2015 but  on the perusal  of the document Ex.C-9 we find that the same  is dated 25.01.2015 whereas  as per document Ex.C-8 which is dated 27.01.2015 the OPs have realized that the liability of the complainant was that of Rs.2,50,000/-. From this we are of the opinion that had the complainant been in that need of the money then he would have borrowed the money soon after the refusal of the amount by the bank but as this document is dated 25.01.2015 and the OPs had sent the reply to the complainant with regard to the withdrawal of the notice and had confirmed the liability  of Rs.2,50,000/- . So, it seems that the complainant has borrowed  the  amount for 2-3 days and not more.

7.             So, from the facts stated above, we find that the OPs are deficient in service and accordingly we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant being the consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses .  

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course. 

Announced

                August 4, 2015

 

 

 

( Sarita Garg)         ( K.C.Sharma)     (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                

Member                     Member                President

 

 

BBS/-