Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/629/2021

Inder Bir - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Assistant General Manager State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

10 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/629/2021
Date of Institution	:	20.9.2021
Date of Decision	:	10/4/2024

 

Inder Bir, aged 48 years, son of late Shri Ram Das, resident of House No.979, Sector 38 (West), Dadumajra,  Colony, Chandigarh 160014.

...Complainant

 

 

Versus

 

1. The Assistant General Manager State Bank of India, Medical Institute Branch, Sector 12, Chandigarh.

2. The General Manager (Network-1), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh-160017.

3. The Branch Manager, AXIS Bank, Sector 35- B, Chandigarh.

4. Anita d/o Jetu Ram W/o Sh. Inder Bir Singh R/o H.No.979, Sector 38 (West), Dadumajra Colony, Chandigarh.

 

...Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Sanjeev Dua, Advocate for OPs No.1&2.
	:	Sh.Shivoy Dhir, Advocate for OP No.3 (through VC)
	:	OP No.4 exparte.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

     Briefly stated the wife of the complainant Ms. Anita applied for a small flat under EWS category Sector 63 of Chandigarh Housing Board  Scheme 2008.  The complainant took loan of Rs.56,625/- from the OP No.1 for the aforesaid purpose. Unfortunately the wife of the complainant was unsuccessful applicant and she was informed to collect the refund from AXIS Bank and even the OP No.1 was also intimated about it because the loan amount was financed by the OP No.1 but the OP No.1 did not take it seriously  and started to issue letters to the complainant to clear the loan amount.  A letter was issued by AXIS Bank in the name of complainant’s wife to OP No.1 for refund but despite of that the OP No.1 had deducted amounts of Rs.6000/- and 12,000/- from the account of the complainant without intimating him. The Complainant tried to contact with the Opposite Party No.1 for deduction of Rs.12,000/- from his account without any intimation and the Complainant was told by the Opposite Party No.1 that the loan still stands in his name though the Complainant has submitted all the required documents to the Opposite Party No.1 after collecting from AXIS Bank and Chandigarh Housing Board so the question does not arise for the loan standing in the name of Complainant.  It is alleged that the complainant has already supplied the list of unsuccessful candidates to the OPs but despite that OP No.1 has not released the refund  rather increased the loan amount to Rs.90,459/-  and threatened the complainant to put his name in NPA/Bad account for non-payment of the loan amount.  The complainant approached the OP No.1 many times to release the refund but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Party NO.1 in its reply denied that the Axis Bank i.e. OP No.3 has ever supplied any information to it regarding the refund. At present the record is not traceable with the OP No.1 as the matter in question relates to the year 2008 i.e. 14 years old case. No letter was ever received by OP No.1 from OP no.3 in the name of complainant's wife "Anita" for refund. Had OP No.3 ever written any such letter, then the OP No.3 was duty bound to provide the reference number alongwith date of the said letter to the OP No.1 regarding refund of loan amount, as such in the absence of any information/ reference about the refund, the OP no.1 cannot close the loan account. As the loan account was not closed as such as per banking norms the OP No.1 is duty bound to deduct the interest amount against the said loan amount from time to time till any information regarding closure of loan account or deposit of loan amount is not made by the complainant.  It is averred that if the name of complainant's wife is shown in the list of unsuccessful candidates, then the refund was to be made by OP No.3 to OP no.1, then it was the duty of OP No.1 to release the said refund to the complainant's wife but when there is no intimation regarding refund has been received by the OP No.1 from OP No.3, then how the OP No.1 can release the refund. It is the duty of the complainant and OP No.3 to provide the refund information to the OPNo.1 which was never supplied as there is no information regarding refund from OP No.3 as such OP No.1 cannot realse the refund to the complainant and the loan account is still existing.  Denying any deficiency on its part all other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OP No.2  adopted the reply of OP No.1  vide its counsel’s separate statement dated 7.6.2023.
4. The OP No.3 in its reply took preliminary objection of limitation and stated that the complainant is having saving account with OP No.1 and 2 and such he is customer of SBI and not of the answering OP.  It is averred that the complainant has made claim against OP No.1&2 and nothing has been claimed against it. Denying any deficiency on its part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint qua OP No.3 has been made.
5. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
6. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
8. The sole point for consideration in the present case is that in whose possession the hard earned money of the complainant is lying since a longtime.  As per record the answer to the same is that OP No.3  is the custodian of the hard earned money of the complainant. As per case of the complainant he applied for a small flat in EWS category in Sector 63, Chandigarh  Housing Board Scheme 2008 and for that purpose  he  availed loan of Rs. 56,625/-  from OP No.1 which was further transferred in the account of Chandigarh Housing Board maintained with OP No.3.
9. As per record admittedly the unsuccessful applicants are entitled for release of refund. As the complainant was also an unsuccessful applicant therefore he was also entitled for refund but till date he has not received the refund due to the inactive approach of OP No.3. The complainant has placed on record the information received through Chandigarh Housing Board regarding status of the refund of the earnest money to the unsuccessful applicants including the complainant. As per Annexure C-7 at page 22 of the paper book after various efforts made by the complainant, he got confirmation on 29.6.2016 that OP No.3 was instructed by Chandigarh Housing Board to refund the earnest money to unsuccessful applicants in respect of those cases  which were financed by State Bank of India MI Branch, Sector 12, Chandigarh  i.e. OP No.1.
10. During the proceedings of the case the OP No.3 could not prove on record that he made any effort  for the alleged refund. So far as the question of deficiency on the part of the OPs No.1&2 is concerned, the complainant admittedly got the loan sanctioned from it and received various reminders for closing the account being unsuccessful applicant so that he may not face adverse consequences.  Hence, Ops No.1&2 cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service.
11. From the foregoing and record it is proved that the OP No.3 has illegally retained the hard earned money of the complainant and due to inactive attitude of OP No.3 only, the consumer/complainant had to suffer which certainly caused  mental agony and physical harassment to him. Hence, deficiency is writ large on the part of the OP No.3 and it is liable to refund the disputed amount to the complainant.
12. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OP No.3 is directed as under:-

1. to refund Rs.56,625/- with interest @9% P.A. from 29.4.2008 when the complainant deposited the amount with Chandigarh Housing Board till its realization.
2. to pay Rs.35,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

13.      This order be complied with by the OP No.3 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
14. Complaint qua OPs No.1,2&4 stands dismissed.
15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
16.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member