Punjab

Sangrur

CC/465/2016

Dalbara Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Bhawanigarh Primary Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri J.S.Kaler

22 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                           

                                                Complaint No.  465

                                                Instituted on:    26.07.2016

                                                Decided on:       22.11.2016

 

Dalbara Singh aged about 50 years son of Dalip Singh, resident of Village Gharachon, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

The Bhawanigarh Primary Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank Ltd. Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :       Shri J.S.Kaler, Adv.

For OP                     :       Shri Ritesh Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.               Shri Dalbara Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained a loan from the OP on 11.01.2008 of which he has been paying the instalments regularly.  Further case of the complainant is that in the month of September, 2014, the complainant came to know that the OP has added Rs.3200/- in the loan amount on account of legal fee, whereas the Op never lodged any case against the complainant.   Further case of the complainant is that though he sent the application dated 21.9.2014 and 8.8.2015 to the OP to refund the said illegal amount of Rs.3200/- to the complainant, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to waive off the amount of Rs.3200/- wrongly added in the account of the complainant and further the complainant has claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.               In reply filed by OP, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complaint is time barred, that the complainant is not the consumer of the Ops and that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant took a house loan on 11.1.2008 from the OP for Rs.5,00,000/- and two cheques were given to the complainant in lieu of that.  It is stated that the complainant became defaulter on 31.3.2009 and the amount of Rs.3200/- was debited to the complainant on account of counsel fee.  It is further stated that the complainant issued the cheque number 475996 dated 1.6.2011 of State Bank of Patiala to the OP which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds as such the Op had to file  a complaint.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.               The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of passbook, Ex.C-3 copy of application dated 8.8.2015, Ex.C-4 copy of application dated 21.9.2014 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP  has produced Ex.OP/1 affidavit, Ex.OP/2 copy of letter dated 26.6.2015, Ex.OP/3 copy of account statement, Ex.OP/4 copy of memo, Ex.OP/5 copy of cheque, Ex.OP/6 copy of legal notice and postal receipt, Ex.OP/7 copy of notice, Ex.OP/8 copy of order dated 8.1.2014, Ex.OP/9 application and closed evidence.

 

 

4.               We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

 

5.               It is an admitted fact between the parties that he complainant took a house loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the OP on 11.1.2008.  In the present case, the complainant has alleged that the OP has wrongly and illegally debited an amount of Rs.3200/- in his account on 8.7.2011 and 19.7.2011 on account of legal fee, whereas the OP never filed any case against the complainant nor the complainant was a defaulter at any stage in the loan account, as such, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the amount of Rs.3200/- be refunded to the complainant along with interest and compensation.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has contended that the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly barred by time, as the amount of Rs.3200/- was debited to the account of the complainant on 8.7.2011 and 19.7.2011, as is evident from the copy of pass book on record as Ex.C-2, whereas the present complaint has been filed only on 26.7.2016, after a period of expiry of two years as the complainant was required to file the complaint within a period of two years as stipulated in section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As such, without further going into the merits of the case, we find that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum. 

 

6.               In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant being not maintainable being barred by time. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.    

                Pronounced.

                November 22,2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member