Punjab

Faridkot

CC/14/110

M/s Jagdish Parshad - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBOP - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Kumar Goyal

07 Apr 2015

ORDER

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        110

Date of Institution :   26.08.2014

Date of Decision :     7.04.2015

 

M/s Jagdish Parshad Suresh Kumar Kotkapura through its Partner Smt Anshul w/o Ashok Kumar r/o Dr Harpal Street, Kotkapura, Distt Faridkot.                                                     

....Complainant

Versus

State Bank of Patiala, through its Manager, Railway Road, Kotkapura.            

...............Opposite Party/OP

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ashwani Kumar Mehta, President,

Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

Sh P Singla, Member.

Present:       Sh Atul Gupta, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

 Sh R K Goyal, Ld Counsel for OP.

 

 

(A K Mehta, President)

                                      Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against State Bank of Patiala/Opposite party for illegally withholding title deed of the property of Smt Anshul and for not issuing the NOC/Clearance Certificate of the loan and illegally transferring the amount of Rs 1,62,616.21p and for seeking directions to OP to release the title deed of the property of Anshul w/o Ashok Kumar regarding residential house measuring 253 Sq Yard situated  in Dr Harpal Singh Street and for reimbursement /crediting the amount of Rs 1,62,616.21/-alongwith Rs 5,00,000/-as compensation for harassment, mental agony and pain besides Rs 22,000/-as litigation expenses.

2                                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Smt Anshul is the registered partner of the firm M/s Jagdish Parshad Suresh Kumar, Kotkapura and to earn the livelihood, complainant had availed CC Limit from OP having account no. 65040271174 after pledging the property i.e house situated in Harpal Singh Street measuring 253 Sq Yard, Kotkapura owned by Smt Anshul; that complainant repaid the entire loan amount to the OP and nothing remains due to be paid, rather the amount of Rs 1,62,616.21/-remained in excess in the said limit belonging to complainant, which is crystal clear from the statement of account issued by the OP;  that after clearance of the loan, complainant requested the OP to issue the NOC/clearance certificate regarding the property, which is pledged with OP and also requested to pay Rs 1,62,616.21 but to no effect; that complainant also served a registered notice upon OP to release the original title deed to the complainant and also to pay amount of Rs 1,62,616.21; that in the said registered notice, there was a typographical mistake wherein it was stated that the property belongs to Ashok Kumar, whereas it should have been mentioned as property of Anshul w/o Ashok Kumar and immediately, the counsel for complainant served registered errata to OP; that as the payment of loan has been paid to the OP, therefore, OP is under legal obligation to release the title deed and to issue the NOC/clearance certificate  alongwith amount of Rs 1,62,616.21 to complainant, but OP has refused to return the title deed of the house alongwith NOC/clearance certificate to complainant; that the act and conduct of the OP has caused great harassment  and mental tension to complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice; that complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- besides Rs 22,000/- as costs of the complaint along with main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                                      The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 27.08.2014, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                    On receipt of the notice, the opposite party filed written statement taking preliminary objection that complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed; that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against answering OP and complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. However, on merits, OP admitted that amount has been paid but said recovery was affected by way of sale of shop and a plot and some amount was paid by one Veena Rani; that the case was posted under the Scruitinization Act and publication charges, advertisement charges of Rs 50,256/- and regular agency/enforcement agency fee of Rs 1,12,360/-etc have been recovered from the complainant firm under the said Acts. It was asserted that Smt Anshul was also partner of Sham Cotton & General Mills and the said concern had also availed the loan from OP Bank and the amount of that concern is also due and OP has moved the Debt Recovery Tribunal for the recovery of the bank dues, in which property in question is attached; that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering opposite party; that all other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite party.

5                                                        Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them.  The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-9 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                                  In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh Parveen Galhotra, Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala as Ex. OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 4 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                       We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

8                                                         Ld Counsel for complainant contended that Smt Anshul w/o Sh Ashok Kumar is partner of complainant firm M/s Jagdish Parshad Suresh Kumar, Kotkapura and complainant firm availed CC limit under account no. 65040271174 and also pledged her property situated in Kotkapura as security for the said loan amount. He contended that complainant firm paid the entire outstanding amount of loan to the OP Bank and rather amount of Rs 1,62,616.21 was lying excess in the said loan account, which was belonging to the complainant. He contended that after the payment of loan amount by the complainant, the OP Bank was duty bound to release the property of the Anshul w/o Ashok Kumar which was pledged in the said loan account and also to issue NOC/Clearance Certificate to the complainant, but the OP Bank illegally withdrew  the amount o f Rs 1,62,616.21 from the account of the complainant and also did not issue the NOC/Clearance Certificate nor  released the property of Smt Anshul inspite of repeated requests of Smt Anshul, which caused harassment and mental agony to the said Smt Anshul and as such, complaint is required to be allowed and complainant is entitled for issuance of NOC/Clearance Certificate and property of Smt Anshul pledged for the said loan amount is required to be released immediately and complainant is also entitled to refund of Rs 1,62,616.21 illegally withdrawn by the OP Bank and OP Bank is also required to be burdened with compensation and litigation expenses as mentioned in the complaint.

9                                                 Ld Counsel for OP admitted that complainant firm availed CC Limit amount from the OP Bank and also admitted that loan amount has been totally adjusted. He further contended that loan amount was not paid by the complainant as alleged in the complaint, rather same was recovered by the sale of shop and a plot and some amount was paid by one Smt Veena Rani associate of Smt Anshul. He further contended that Smt Anshul was also partner in Sham Cotton and General Mill and the said firm has also availed loan from the OP Bank and amount was due towards the OP Bank and to recover the said amount, OP Bank filed a petition in the Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh and the house in dispute was also attached in the said case by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh and as such, the sale deed of the said house cannot be released to Smt Anshul. He further contended that the OP Bank had legally withdrawn the amount from the loan account of complainant, as the case of the complainant was taken up under the Scruitinization Act under which publication and advertisement charges amounting to Rs 50,256/- and Regular Agency/Enforcement Fee of Rs 1,12,360/- was due from the complainant firm and the same was recovered from the complainant firm under the law and as such, no amount was illegally withdrawn from the account of the complainant firm. He also contended that complainant firm has concealed the material facts  regarding filing of the petition in Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh and have also concealed the fact that the house in dispute was attached in the said case by the Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh and as such, the allegation of the complainant that she has been harassed and suffered mental agony is incorrect and complainant is not entitled to compensation or litigation expenses or any relief under the complaint and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

10                                       After going through the record of the case, the evidence led by the parties on file, this Forum is of the considered opinion that complainant firm availed CC Limit from the OP Bank, but complainant firm had paid the loan amount to OP Bank as OP Bank has admitted in the reply that complainant firm has paid the amount of the loan to the OP Bank. The only dispute between the parties is that after the adjustment of loan amount, the house property pledged under the loan account was required to be released or not and whether amount of Rs 1,62,616.21 is legally withdrawn or not and whether Clearance Certificate/NOC  is required to be issued or not. The contention of the OP Bank is that the amount has not been illegally withdrawn from the account of the complainant firm, rather case of the complainant was taken up under the Scruitinization Act and publication and advertisement charges amounting to Rs 50,256/- were due from the said account and amount of Rs 1,12,360/- as Regular Agency/Enforcement Agency Fee were also due and paid from the said account and as such, amount of Rs 1,62,616.21 has been legally withdrawn from the account of the complainant firm and the house property was also attached by the Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh in some other matter pending before it and due to this reason, title deed of the house in dispute cannot be released nor the house in dispute can be released to the complainant. OP proved publication and advertisement charges Ex OP-2 and Enforcement Agency Fee charges Ex OP-3 on  file, which shows that amount of Rs 50,256/- was due on account of publication and advertisement charges and amount of Rs 1,12,360/-was due under the Enforcement Agency Fee. Otherwise also, OP Bank has taken a plea that it has legally withdrawn the amount from the complainant account for payment to publication and advertisement charges and for Enforcement Agency Fee and if complainant is not satisfied with this plea, then, it can agitate the matter under the law before appropriate Forum. Otherwise, OP Bank has also proved order Ex OP-4 vide which house in dispute was attached by Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal and as such, house in dispute was legally not released by the OP Bank, but otherwise OP Bank had admitted in the written statement that amount of loan has been paid by complainant firm and if the amount has been fully adjusted by the complainant firm, then complainant firm is entitled to NOC/Clearance Certificate of the loan though complainant firm is not entitled to release of title deed of the house in dispute as the same is under attachment by the Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh and OP Bank has explained as to how amount of Rs 1,62,616.21 has been withdrawn for payment as publication and advertisement charges and Enforcement Agency Fee.

11                                              In the light of above discussion, the complainant is entitled to NOC/Clearance Certificate of the loan and as such, complaint is allowed in parts only to the extent of release of NOC/Clearance Certificate of loan account. Therefore, OP Bank is directed to issue NOC/Clearance Certificate of the loan account to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and complaint is disposed of accordingly. In view of peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 7.04.2015

Member                Member                President     (Parampal Kaur) (P  Singla)                  (A K Mehta)