Sh.Naresh Mahajan complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to correct his statement of car loan account. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and pain alongwith any other relief which he may be found entitled to, in the interest of justice.

2.      The case of the complainant in brief is that  he  had got a car loan  bearing account No.65062392865 of Rs.2,69,000/- from opposite party no.1 in August 2009 which was to be cleared by him within a period of 7 years by paying equal monthly installments of Rs.4677/- per month. His wife namely Smt.Rashi Mahajan stood his guarantor who is having saving account No.65088964197 with opposite party no.1. He had been regularly paying his monthly installments of Rs.4677/- and in one or two occasion if he did not deposit his monthly installment in a particular month, then he deposited even more than the double monthly installment in the subsequent month.  He has further pleaded that on 4.8.2015, all the opposite parties in connivance with each other without going through their record and without giving any notice or intimation to affix his photographs and his wife in the Bank premises by treating them as defaulter of their bank illegally and arbitrarily. He came to know regarding this fact on 21.8.2015 in the evening, when his close friend sent the above said photographs on his whatsapp and he and his wife were totally shocked and surprised to see this. On 24.8.2015 at about 11.00 am, he along with his wife contacted all the opposite parties and showed their genuine grievance as to why their photographs were affixed in the bank and why they were shown as defaulter of the bank without any notice or intimation of any sort from the bank. On 4.8.2015 approximately Rs.5,000/- was short which was to be deposited by him and he had the entire month for depositing this amount but to the  dismay of complainant and his wife, they were not given any prior notice by all the opposite parties in connivance with each other and having malafide against them. His wife who is his guarantor had a credit balance of Rs.55,524/- in her saving account no.65088964197 on 4.8.2010 and opposite parties could well recover the short amount if any from the guarantor also, but they did nothing to redress his grievance and could not give any satisfactory reply. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

 3     Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the opposite parties have not committed any default in service as no service on the part of the opposite parties is required in the present case qua the complaint in question and as such the complaint is not maintainable against it and liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. On merits, it was submitted that complainant availed car loan from the opposite party but it was submitted that he remained irregular in making repayment of loan amount so availed by him since the time of disbursement and every time the branch officials had to inform him about the deposit of installment when he used to fail the same by due date and after many reminders through phone calls he used to deposit the same. It was further submitted that the account of the complainant became NPA in the year 2013 and bank was forced to proceed under SARFAESI Act by issuing registered notices to him and his guarantor on 9.10.2013 and thereafter he deposited the overdue amount and continued to pay the installment but the account remained irregular. The account of the complainant came under SMA-03 Category on 10.12.2014 and again turned NPA on 01.01.2015 and the account again came in SMA-03 Category on 11.3.2015 and remained irregular. After continuous follow up the complainant deposited three installments in bulk and the account was regularized in March 2015. But unfortunately the account again became NPA on 01.06.2015 and remained as it is till 22.08.2015. However, it was submitted that as the account was again NPA since 01.06.2015, the photographs of complainant and his guarantor were displayed on the notice board of the bank as per instructions from higher authorities from RBI circulars in this regard received in the last week of July 2015. It was also brought to the notice that at the time of displaying photographs of the complainant, the photographs of other borrowers who had failed to deposit the dues of loan amount were also displayed as per instructions issued from higher officials. There was nothing special about the complainant’s photographs alone to be displayed as alleged. It was next submitted that when the complainant deposited the due amount, his photographs were immediately removed from the notice board of the bank. On visit of the complainant in the office of bank he and his wife were fully explained and disclosed about the instructions received in the month of July 2015 with the directions to display the photographs of the defaulters on the notice board by the bank officials failing which departmental action has been suggested and the opposite parties has just obeyed and followed the instructions of his superiors only and did nothing wrong. It was next submitted that on the day of NPA i.e. 01.06.2015 there was balance of Rs.380/- in her SB account number 65088964197 which was insufficient to cover the bank dues. However as per bank’s loan documents so executed by complainant in favour of the bank, he has every right to disclose all facts regarding taking of loan etc. including the default and thus the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from disputing the right of the bank about the same.  All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C1 and of Smt.Rashi Mahajan Ex.C2, alongwith other documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.S.L.Mittal Branch Manager of opposite parties tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP-11 and closed the evidence.

6.      We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence along with its supporting documents as available on records of the proceedings while adjudicating the present complaint. We observe that the complainant Naresh Mahajan had availed a Car Loan of Rs.2.69 Lac from the OP Bank with his wife Rashi standing as surety to the said Loan repayable at an EMI of Rs.4,677/- for 7 years. Somehow, the complainant during the pendency of the availed Loan defaulted in its repayment for more than once but only by small petty amounts and that were also duly deposited though a little late in point of time than the due date. We further find that the OP Bank Branch in compliance to the controlling office instructions did admittedly display the photographs of the complainant and his wife as ‘defaulters’ on the Branch Notice Board from where these were put on ‘words-app’ circulation by some mischief-mongers and that subjected the complainant and his guarantor wife to ‘discomfort and embarrassment’ in the town. There has been no evidence of any prior ‘notice’ and/or pre ‘intimation’ to the complainant of the above ‘display’ of the complainant’s (and his wife’s) photographs as ‘defaulters’ on Branch’s notice board. The legal notice Ex.C3 duly served by the complainant upon the OP Bank and the CD (compact disc) Ex.C7 along with others duly prove the allegations of the complainant as made out in the present complaint. On the other hand the OP Bank has even failed to quantify the exact loan amount in default (Ex.OP8 & 9 - being unintelligible) and even the Sarfaesi Notice is undated i.e., not served upon and have also admitted the intermittent ‘regularization’ of the A/c by the complainant and to top it all the absence of any pre-intimation of the extreme step of ‘display’ of photographs do surely justify the Bank’s hasty and arbitrary act at the face of Ex.OP2 that ‘cautions’ photography of displayed photograph of ‘defaulters’. There has been no-mention of the steps undertaken to prevent ‘photography’ of the display board. Lastly, the consent letter Ex.OP4 & OP5 finds no mention of ‘display of photographs’ as defaulters but simply providing information to assess ‘credit rating’ of the borrowers in case of default. Under the circumstances, we find that the OP Bank through its unjustifiable act (amounting to unfair trade practice resulting into deficiency in service) done in haste sans the requisite legal measures has lined itself to an adverse award under the applicable statute.

7.         In the light of the all above, we find that the present dead-end lock-up situation shall be somewhat moderated through monetary compensation and thus while disposing of this complaint we ORDER the opposite party Bank to send an exhaustive and transparent Statement of Car Loan account to the complainant besides to pay him Rs.20,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actual payment and penal proceedings u/s 27 CPA shall be initiated against Ops.

8.        Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

                                                            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                      President

ANNOUNCED:                                            (Jagdeep Kaur)

July, 12 2016.                                              Member                       

*MK*