New Complaint No.240 of 2023.
Date of Institution:27.10.2023.
Old Complaint No:313 of 2018.
Date of Institution: 19.07.2018.
Date of order:05.02.2024.
Avtar Singh aged about 60 years Son of Sh. Mahinder Singh, resident of Village Seikhwan, Post Office Fatehgarh Churian, Tehsil Batala and District Gurdaspur. Aadhaar No.8500 0489 4602.
.....Complainant.
VERSUS
1. The Batala Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., Batala, Near Bus Stand, Tehsil Batala and District Gurdaspur, through its Branch Manager.
2. Assistant Collector Grade First, Co-operative Societies Batala, Tehsil Batala and District Gurdaspur.
3. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies Batala, Tehsil Batala and District Gurdaspur.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.B.S. Dhakala, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Avtar Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against The Batala Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and is earning his livelihood for himself and also for his family members from the agriculture income. The complainant has availed the service of the opposite party No. 1 for getting loan facilities of Rs.2,50,000/- for construction of his residential house from the opposite parties in the year 2002. It is pleaded that at the time of advancement of loan the matter was amicably settled between the complainant and the opposite parties through their agent that the opposite parties would charge a simple interest on the said loan facility from the complainant at the rate of Rs.3.50 % (Flat) per annum and to secure the said loan amount, the opposite parties have got deposited some blank signed cheques in lieu of security purpose and obtained his signatures on certain blank papers / documents from the complainant for the purpose of documentation in respect of said loan. It is further pleaded that the complainant has paid all the installments to the opposite parties against the loan account bearing No. 97/1 HL and nothing is due towards the complainant. The complainant has paid the total installments of loan amount i.e. amounting to Rs.4,31,000/-. But on dated 25.05.2018 the complainant was surprised to receive a notice bearing No. 347 dated 15.05.2018 from the office of the opposite parties. In the said notice, the opposite parties have demanded of Rs.4,72,329/- i.e. upto dated 31.05.2018, which is an illegal, arbitrary demand and is null and void, against the principal of natural justice, capricious in nature, cryptic, no nest in the eyes of law, being demanded in utter violation and against the rules and regulation of the bank. It is further pleaded that on the very next day the complainant visited the office of the opposite parties and requested to them that the complainant has already has already cleared the loan amount outstanding against him and why the opposite parties have sent this notice to him. Then, the opposite party No. 3 after verifying the record assured to the complainant that it is a clerical mistake he need not worry about the same and it is a waste paper and their office will withdraw the same by sending a letter in this regard. The complainant is law abiding citizen and he came into the sweet talks of the opposite party No. 3. But, on dated 11.06.2018 the employees of the opposite parties alongwith some "Gundas" and "uncivilized persons" hired by the opposite parties came to the house of the complainant and demanded Rs.4,72,329/- illegally and forcibly and on demanding the explanation by the complainant for the said huge amount, then said "Gundas" and "uncivilized persons" have misbehaved and mishandled to the complainant and his family members without and reasonable cause. Then, the complainant again visited the office of the opposite parties on dated 12.06.2018 and enquired about the matter, then the opposite parties have flatly demanded the amount in question which is totally against the norms and regulation of RBI and utter violation of settlement effected between the complainant and the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that the opposite parties are also threatening to the complainant to misuse the security blank signed cheques of the complainant and to get register a false criminal case against the complainant. The opposite parties are also alleging that they have received instruction from their higher officers, in this regard, which is also illegal, null and void. It is further pleaded that at the time of taking the loan the complainant came into the talks of the opposite parties and the opposite parties have taken signature of the innocent complainant on so many blanks papers without disclosing anything more about the term and condition of the loan and the complainant also did not enquire or read over anything more, as there was built an understanding between the opposite parties and the complainant with their sweet talk and the opposite parties told to the complainant it is just a paper formalities. Now, the complainant has apprehension that the opposite parties will misuse the said blank signed documents against him. If the opposite parties have prepared any such document on the said signed papers that are also illegal, null and void. It is further pleaded that the complainant has issued a legal notice dated 15.06.2018 with a request to the opposite parties to withdraw their notice bearing No. 347 dated 15.05.2018 regarding illegal demand of Rs.4,72,329/- and not to initiate any type of proceeding acting on the basis of security blank signed cheques and blank singed papers and also withdraw their illegal threats to register a false criminal case against the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of that legal notice, but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of the complainant and replied the legal notice vide reply dated 19.06.2018 received on dated 06.07.2018 with vague some allegation and excused. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to withdraw their notice bearing No. 347 dated 15.05.2018 regarding illegal demand of Rs.4,72,329/- and not to initiate any type of proceeding acting on the basis of security blank signed cheques and blank singed papers and also withdraw their illegal threats to register a false criminal case against the complainant and also to issue "No Due Certificate" regarding loan account bearing No. 97/1 HL and also to pay compensation for Rs.10,000/- for the mental harassment, agony, inconvenience, insult and also to pay Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses which the complainant has incurred. The complainant may kindly be granted any other relief to which he is legally and equitably entitled to as per the facts and circumstances of the case. This may be done for the sake of brevity and justice.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in its present form. It is pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable as there no notice U/s 79 of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 has been served upon the answering opposite parties before filling the present complaint. The complaint is not maintainable as there no notice U/s 80 CPC was served upon the answering opposite parties No. 2 and 3 as the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 are the Government servants and no complaint can be filed against Govt. employees before giving notice U/s 80 CPC. It is further pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not come to the Hon’ble Court with clean hands and the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has concealed material facts from this Hon'ble Court. It is further pleaded that the matter of fact is that the complainant took loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from The Batala Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. Batala through cheques in two installments in the year 2004 for construction of house by executing mortgage deed dated 14.10.2004 in favour of The Batala Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. Batala. It is further pleaded that complainant had moved one application for taking loan which was duly signed by the complainant. The complainant has raised loan from The Batala Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. Batala being its member. His loan was sanctioned on dated 12.10.2004. For repayment of the loan the complainant got mortgaged the property of his father Sh. Mohinder Singh who stood surety for the complainant vide mortgage deed dated 14.10.2004. It is further pleaded that the complainant received 1st installment of Rs.2,00,000/- out of four lakhs (loan amount) vide cheque No. 69513 dated 03.11.2004 of Punjab National Bank Batala vide receipt dated 03.11.2004 duly signed by the complainant i.e. Avtar Singh and also duly signed by the witnesses namely Sh. Lakhwinder Singh and Sh. Sardool Singh. The complainant received 2nd installment of Rs.2,00,000/- out of four lakhs (loan amount) vide cheque No. 1286410 dated 21.01.2005 of Punjab National Bank Batala vide receipt dated 21.01.2005 duly signed by the complainant i.e. Avtar Singh and also duly signed/put thumb impression by the witnesses namely Sh. Manohar Singh and Sh. Harinder Singh. It is further pleaded that the loan was for 15 years (fifteen years) and the rate of interest as per mortgage deed dated 14.10.2004 is/was 11% per annum and in default the rate of interest will charged @ 13% on the default amount. It is further pleaded that Batala Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. Batala is registered under The Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and its main function is to advance loan to the needy persons/members and recover the same alongwith interest from the loanee persons/members by adopting legal procedure. It is further pleaded that the story put forth by the complainant is false and concocted story which cannot be believed. An amount of Rs.4,92,310/- till 01.07.2018 is outstanding against the complainant and the complainant continues to be defaulter. It is further pleaded that no threat was ever made by the defendant bank i.e. opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that The Batala Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. Batala i.e. (opposite party No. 1 Bank) is adopting legal procedure for the recovery of the loan alongwith interest and penal interest as the complainant is a defaulter loanee now and there was no role of the opposite parties No.2 and 3.
On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed affidavit of Avtar Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.C-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-20 alongwith complaint.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has filed an affidavit of Sh. Balwinder Singh, (Manager of The Batala Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., Batala, Gurdaspur) alongwith other documents as Annexure – A to Annexure – K alongwith reply.
6. Rejoinder filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments not filed by the parties.
8. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had approached the opposite party No.1 for availing loan facility of Rs.2,50,000/- for construction of his residential house from the opposite parties in the year 2002 and the complainant was assured by the opposite parties to charge simple interest on the said loan @ 3.50% (Flat) per annum and to secure the loan opposite parties obtained blank signed cheques and signatures on number of blank documents. It is further argued that complainant had paid all the installments to the opposite parties and nothing is due but inspite of that on 25.05.2018 opposite parties issued notice for recovery of Rs.4,72,329/- upto 31.05.2018. The said notice is illegal as the complainant has already made payment of all the due amount. It is further argued that complainant had approached the opposite parties and opposite parties have assured the complainant to look into the matter but again started demanding amount from the complainant by visiting the house with gunda elements. It is further argued that opposite parties have refused to issue NOC inspite of having received the entire loan amount and notice No.347 dated 15.05.2018 is liable to be withdrawn and act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.
9. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 3 has argued that present complaint is legally defective for want of notice U/s 79 of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. It is further argued that opposite parties No.2 and 3 are public servant and notice U/s 80 CPC was mandatory before filing the present complaint. It is further argued that the complainant has filed the present complaint of grounds misrepresentative of facts and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. It is further argued that complainant had obtained loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from opposite party No.1 in two installments in the year 2004 for construction of house by executing mortgage deed dated 14.10.2004 being member of society. It is further argued that the complainant mortgaged property of his father Sh.Mohinder Singh who stood surety vide mortgage deed dated 14.10.2004 and thereafter complainant received the second installment of the loan amount in the presence of witnesses. It is further argued that the loan obtained by the complainant was a period of fifteen years and as per mortgage deed was repayable with 11% interest per annum and in default rate of interest to be charged was @ 13% per annum on default amount. It is further argued that no threat was ever given by the opposite party to the complainant. However, bank had adopted the legal procedure for recovery of the loan as the complainant became defaulter loanee member of the society. It is further argued that opposite party No.3 was appointed as Sales Officer for sale of mortgage property for recovery of the loan amount. It is further argued that till 01.07.2018 amount of Rs.4,92,310/- was outstanding against the complainant and complainant continues to be defaulter. It is further argued that if the blanked signed cheques and documents were misused then why no complaint was lodged by the complainant. It is further argued that after receiving the notice bearing No.347 dated 15.05.2018 instead of paying the amount complainant got legal notice served upon the opposite parties from his counsel. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
10. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
11. To prove his case complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.C2, copies of receipts regarding deposit of amounts Ex.C3 to Ex.C15, copy of notice No.347 Ex.C16, copy of legal notice Ex.C17, postal receipts Ex.C18 to Ex.C20 whereas opposite parties have placed on record affidavit of Balwinder Singh Manager, copy of application form Annexure-A, copy of identity card of complainant Avtar Singh Annexure-B, copy of identity card of complainant Mohinder Singh father of complainant Annexure-C, copy of mortgage deed Annexure-D, copies of form of receipt Annexure-E, and Annexure-F, copy of certificate regarding proper utilization Annexure-G, copy of proper utilization certificate Annexure-H, certificate Annexure-I, copy of notice Annexure-J and copy of reply to notice Annexure-K.
12. Perusal of application annexure-A shows that the complainant had applied for loan of Rs.4,00,000/- being member of the society for construction of his house and had executed mortgage deed annexure-D which duly registered in the office of Joint Sub Registrar Fatehgarh Churian as document No.712 on 14.10.2004. By way of said mortgage deed land situated in village Sekhwan has been mortgaged in favour of the bank and as per this mortgaged deed which is duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar, the rate of interest mentioned is 11% per annum and 13% in case of default and the loan amount was to be returned within fifteen year. The plea of the opposite parties is that notice U/s 68 of Revenue Act, 1887 was issued on 07.05.2018 and Rs.4,72, 329/- was due from the complainant and to rebut the allegation of the opposite parties counsel for the complainant has referred to the copies of receipts Ex.C3 to Ex.C15 as per which from 15.05.2006 to 21.11.2017 the complainant had already deposited Rs.5,78,000/- with the opposite parties and the opposite parties have not acounted for the said receipts in any manner. However, perusal of mortgage deed shows that mortgage deed was executed on 14.10.2004 and the complainant has deposited the first installment on 15.05.2006 vide receipt Ex.C3 almost after one year and thereafter deposited second installment on 29.11.2006 and fourth installment was deposited on 06.09.2007 vide receipt Ex.C6 and thereafter fifth installment of Rs.50,000/- was deposited on 22.01.2010 vide receipt Ex.C7 after delay of more than two and half years and after depositing the installment on 16.05.2012 vide receipt Ex.C12, again complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- on 28.12.2015 vide receipt Ex.C13 after delay of more than there years and after depositing the installment vide receipt Ex.C13 on 28.12.2015 the next installment of Rs.39,000/- was again deposited vide receipt Ex.C14 after one and half years meaning thereby that it is proved on record that complainant was not regular in depositing the installments and had defaulted in depositing the installments with the bank. Although, the bank has not placed on record any statement of account as to how the rate of interest was calculated to arrive at amount mentioned in notice U/s 68 of Revenue Act, 1887. But we are of the view that if we go by the receipts placed on record by the complainant only amount of Rs.5,78,000/- has been deposited. Moreover, the complainant has approached this Commission by concealing facts and on grounds of misrepresentation, as the complainant has alleged that opposite parties obtained blank signed cheques and got various blank documents signed, whereas it is proved on record that complainant being member of the society had mortgaged land of his father in village Sekhwan vide mortgage deed annexure 'D' which is duly registered document in the office of Joint Sub Registrar Fatehgarh Churian. We are of the view that since the opposite parties are a cooperative society which are registered under the Punjab Government Cooperative Society Act, 1961 with main function to advance loan to the members in need and to recover the same alongwith interest from the loanee member by adopting legal procedure and since the complainant willfully defaulted in repayment of the loan amount and the opposite parties issued notice U/s 68 of Revenue Act, 1887 which is legal procedure prescribed for recovery of the due amount, as such we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for having issued notice annexure 'J' U/s 68 of Revenue Act, 1887.
13. As far as the plea of opposite parties regarding non receipt of notice U/s 80 CPC is concerned we are of the view that since the Union of India and State Government are not party to the complaint as such there was no need for the complainant to get the legal notice U/s 80 CPC served. The second objection of opposite parties regarding non service of notice U/s 79 of Punjab Cooperative Society Act, 1961 is concerned. We are of the view that the said bar is regarding filing of Civil Suits as such we are of the view that complainant is not barred from filing the present complaint without serving notice U/s 79 of Punjab Cooperative Society Act, 1961.
14. From the above discussion, evidences on record and facts we are of the view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
15. Accordingly, present complaint being without merit is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
16. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
17. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Feb. 05, 2024 Member.
*YP*
