Haryana

StateCommission

A/31/2020

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUMER CHAND AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

HARSH GARG

19 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.31 of 2020

                                                Date of Institution: 13.01.2020

                                                               Date of Decision: 19.05.2023

 

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mid Corporate Branch, SCO 23-24, Urban Estate, Sector 12, Karnal through its Assistant General Manager Sh.Ajeet Kumar, aged about 50 years, S/o Sh.Gyan Chand Sharma.

…..Appellant

Versus

1       Sumer Chand S/o Sh.Jagiru Ram, R/o H.No.9,Type III Building, 3^rd Floor, KCGMC, Karnal, Distt. Karnal.

2.      Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Ch.Devi Lal University, Sirsa through its constituted attorney and Branch Manager.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

         

                  

Present:-    Mr. Pulkit Goel, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Mr. Sumer Chand respondent No.1 in person.

                   Respondent No.2 already dispensed with vide order dated 31.08.2022.

 

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.31 of 2020 has been filed against the order dated 13.12.2019of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal(In short Now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.263of 2018, which was allowed.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that on 01.06.2012, complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the opposite party No.2. The loan amount was to be repaid by way of 60 EMIseach of Rs.6500/-.However, in the last installment, the OPs bank has deducted excess amount from his salary account. After repaying all the installments, complainant requested the OPs to issue him No Dues Certificate, but, to no avail. Thus there being deficiency  on the part of the OPs, hence the complaint.

3.      Notice was issued to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement of defence but without any signature on the written statement of defence. The learned District Commission  did not consider the written statement of defecne of OP.

4.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Karnalhas allowed the complaint vide order dated 13.12.2019, which is as under:-

“Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, weallow the present complaint and direct the OPs to issue the NOC to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. However, if any amount of loan is outstanding against the complainant, OPs may charged the same without any penalty.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. No.1-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      These argumentswere advanced by Sh.Pulkit Goel,learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Sumer Chand respondent No. 1 in person. With their kind assistance entire record of appealas well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant argued thaton 31.08.2019, an amount of Rs.65,169.70 was outstanding against the complainant in the said loan account. Despite all this complainant filed this false complaint before the learned District Commission. An amount of Rs.65,169.70 was outstanding against the complainant. If the complainant will pay the balance outstanding amount thereafter the appellant can issue the NOC to him.

8.      On the other hand, respondent  while appearing in person vehemently argued that he availed loan of Rs.3,00,000/-, which was to be re-paid vide 60 EMIs and in the last EMIs the appellant deducted excess amount from his account.  He requested the OPs to issue NOC, but, they did not consider his genuine request which lead him to file this complaint.

9.      It is not disputed that the complainant has availed a personal loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the OPs, which was to be paid back in 60 EMIs.  It is also not disputed that in the last EMIs the OP No.1 has deducted excess amount from his account.   Perusal of the file shows that the complainant has been regularly tendering each and every installment to the OP No.1.  The opposite party No.1 could hardly rebut the averments of the complainant before the District Commission.  Since the loan was to be repaid by way of sixty installments or EMIs, which all were duly tendered by complainant then why he is being compelled to pay more of the money by appellant bank. Since the complainant has paid 60 EMIs to OP No.1 regularly, the opposite party No.1 cannot demand more than 60 EMIs and after completing 60 EMIs the OP No.1 should have no hassles to issue the NOC to the complainant without any fuss.The learned District Commissionwas fully justified when it allowed the claim of the complainant and directed appellant to do the needful. The learned District Commission has committed no illegality while passing the order dated 13.12.2019.  The appeal is also devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

10.              Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

11.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

12.    File be consigned to record room.

19th May, 2023                                                                    S. P. Sood                                                                                                                            Judicial Member    

S.K(Pvt. Secy.)