Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/55

Brij Balab Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Faridkot Co-op Agr. Dev. Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Y.P.Bansal

11 Dec 2015

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :         55

Date of Institution :   1.04.2015

Date of Decision :      11.12.2015

Brij Balab Singh s/o Gurpal Singh r/o village Kila Nau (Nawa Killa), Tehsil & District Faridkot.                                                                         ....Complainant

Versus

The Faridkot Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank Ltd (PADB) Kotkapura Road, Faridkot through its Branch Manager.                       ...... OP

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

Sh P Singla, Member.

Present:       Sh Yash Pal Bansal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

 Sh B S Brar, Ld Counsel for OP.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                      Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite party seeking directions to OP to refund the excess amount of Rs 3,57,863/- taken by OP against his loan account with interest at the rate of 18 % per anum alongwith Rs 1,00,000/-as compensation for harassment, mental agony and pain besides Rs 22,000/-as litigation expenses.

2                                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant took loan of Rs 1,50,000/-for grape farming from OP in year 1995 and mortgaged his 16 kanal of land as security against the loan. It is contended that before disbursement of loan amount, OP completed all formalities. They conducted spot survey, got the soil and water checked from laboratories, gave specification for erecting pillars and project was recommended by Director, Horticulture and supplied plants/seeds from Horticulture Department and after completion of all formalities and being satisfied of all the aspects, OP raised loan stage wise in three instalments. Said loan carried subsidy and was to be repaid in instalments, but plants could not be grown due to climatic conditions and non cooperation by OP and therefore, complainant could not repay the loan and his loan account became irregular. As per notification issued by Head Office of OP they cannot charge more than the double of amount of loan from the complainant. It is contended that official of OP was inimical towards complainant and did not pass the scheme to complainant and maximum amount they could charge was Rs 3,01,000/-, but they shrewdly got adjusted the loan of Rs 3,01,000/- showing the fresh finance to complainant, which was not in his knowledge. OP took signatures of complainant on blank papers in 2004 and got remortgaged the same land from complainant which was already mortgaged by him at the time of taking loan of Rs 1,50,000/- with minor addition of 2 kanal 8 marlas without redeeming the land of 16 kanal. Purpose of fresh finance was not disclosed to complainant and no formality as completed earlier was done in 1995. As Op was fully aware that it cannot charge more than Rs 3,01,000/-throughout life from complainant, therefore, they adopted this method by introducing fresh loan account in the name of complainant, whereas OP never adjusted the previous loan account as no amount was paid by him. As per law no fresh loan can be given to a defaulter or loanee unless previous loan account is cleared, but as complainant did not pay any amount and fresh loan can not be advanced to him though this act was done by OP to save their skin by violating the provisions of loan. No fresh loan was paid to complainant. OP by showing the fresh loan in the account of complainant got adjusted the previous loan, which was raised by him in year 1995. Only paper transaction was done by OP. OP approached complainant in January 2015 and demanded Rs 6,58,863/- from him. Said amount of Rs 6,58,863/- was paid by complainant by selling the land and OP issued letter dt 30.01.2015 regarding redeeming the land of 16 Kanal, which was mortgaged by him in 1995 and land was alleged to be mortgaged in year 2004 was redeemed by letter dt 29.01.2015. It is further contended that amount of Rs 6,58,863/- was paid to OP, whereas OP was entitled for only Rs 3,01,000/- and they charged Rs 3,57,863/-in excess from complainant. Complainant has been deprived of this amount and he is entitled for refund of excess amount taken by OP with interest at the rate of 18 % per anum. Complainant made repeated requests to OP to refund the said amount with interest, but OP did not refund the same and this act and conduct of the OP has caused great harassment and mental tension to complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- besides Rs 22,000/- as costs of the complaint along with main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                                      The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 6.04.2015, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                    On receipt of the notice, the opposite party filed written statement taking objections that complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as it is filed on false and frivolous allegations. It is asserted that complainant is not a rustic villager, rather he is a graduate and has retired as  Deputy Manager from the Bank of OP and is fully aware of rules and regulations of OP. Complainant has been defaulter and loan of complainant was restructured on 8.06.2004 as per scheme of Bank and rate of interest was to be charged as 11 % instead of 18 % as earlier agreed in 1995. It is averred that as per scheme prevalent on 29.01.2015, complainant paid double of the loan amount with other miscellaneous legal charges of his own and clearance certificate was given to him by the Bank. The amended settlement scheme 2015 RSS/Loan/CA-2/O.T.S/2452 dt 9.03.2015 issued by Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh was received after 9.03.2015 and same was not applicable on 29.01.2015. One time settlement facility was given to OP as per provisions and rules prevalent on 29.01.2015. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering opposite party. All other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite party.

5                                                   Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them.  The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-6 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                               In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh Gamdoor Singh, Manager of OP as Ex. OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 12 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                          Ld Counsel for complainant argued that in year 1995, complainant raised loan of Rs 1,50,500/- from OP for grape farming and mortgaged his land measuring 16 Kanal as security. Before disbursing the loan, OP completed all the formalities like spot survey, soil and water checking etc. Project was recommended by Director Horticultures and seeds were also supplied by Horticulture Department. After their entire satisfaction, OP disbursed the loan to complainant. This loan was to be repaid in instalments. The grape plants did not grow due to climatic conditions and complainant suffered heavy loss and complainant was not in position to repay the loan, so his loan account became irregular. The complainant is a rustic villager and does not know law and technicalities of OPs. As per scheme of Head Office of OP, they cannot charge more than the double of principal amount from a loanee. The copies of scheme of OP are Ex C-3 and C-4. As such, OP can claim only double of principal amount i.e 3,01,000/-from complainant in any case, but the official of OP were inimical towards complainant and did not pass the scheme to complainant, rather with shrewd brains they themselves disbursed a fresh loan in the name of complainant in the year 2004 and amount of Rs 3,01,000/-got adjusted from the new loan towards payment of loan taken  in the year 1995 and in security of that loan they got remortgaged the same 16 Kanal land with addition of 2 K 8 Marlas, without redeeming it first. The purpose of granting fresh loan was not disclosed to complainant and no formalities were completed before disbursing the loan. As complainant was under pressure being defaulter so, he danced to the tunes of OP and taking this advantage, they got his signatures on blank forms. The complainant took the loan only in 1995 for Rs 1,50,500/- and as per Policy of the Bank, they cannot charge more than double of principal amount from complainant in any case but the officials of OP to cause harm to complainant advanced fresh loan in his name and from that amount adjusted the first loan of 1995. They have no right to do so as per law. The bank cannot give fresh loan to defaulter unless he clears his previous loan but officials of OP violated these conditions. No amount of sanctioned loan was ever paid to complainant by OP and they made only paper transaction without the knowledge of complainant. In the month of January 2015, OP demanded amount of Rs 6,58,863/- from complainant as outstanding loan of 2004. The complainant being rustic villager in good faith paid this amount to OPs without knowledge of notification of Head Office of OPs as according to this notification, the OPs cannot claim more than Rs 3,01,000/- i.e double of loan taken by complainant in 1995. OP issued receipt dt 28.01.2015 regarding payment of this amount. They also issued No Due Certificate and letter to redeem the land got mortgaged by them in year 1995 on 30.01.2015. Copy of the same is Ex C-5 and loan taken in the year 2004 on 29.01.2015. Copy of the same is Ex C-6 wherein both the case the same 16 K land is mortgaged. It also proves that OP played fraud with complainant. In this way, the OPs took Rs 3,57,863/- more from complainant and caused him loss of this amount illegally. The complainant requested OP to make refund of this amount many times, but they refused to do so. All these acts of OP amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. He has prayed that OP may be directed to make refund of amount of Rs 3,57,863/- alongwith interest and compensation.

8                                       To controvert the arguments of complainant counsel, ld counsel for OP argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. Complainant is not a rustic villager, rather he is a graduate and retired Deputy Manager from the Bank of OP and knows each and every law and technicalities of OP. Bank charged the amount rightly and legally from him. He has filed the present complaint with a very shrewd mind to get undue monitory benefit from the OP. The complainant took loan of Rs 1,50,500/- from OP for grape farming in year 1995 and completed all the formalities for it. The complainant mortgaged his land as security. The loan case file of loan of complainant is Ex C-3. The complainant failed to repay the loan as per repayment schedule and became defaulter of the bank. He even did not pay the single instalment to the bank. On request of complainant, his account was restructured on 8.06.2014 as per scheme of bank and the rate of interest was also reduced to 11 % per anum instead of 18 % per anum which was agreed between parties in year 1995. The complainant himself executed new mortgage deed and documents in favour of OP. Loan case file of loan account of 2004 is Ex OP-2.  In this loan file, it is clearly mentioned that the purpose of loan is restructured with the consent and knowledge of complainant. The bank got settled its earlier loan taken in year 1995 and for this loan the bank has taken only double of principal amount as per scheme of bank. Copy of statement of account of loan taken in year 1995 by complainant is Ex OP-8 to Op-10. From it, it is clear that the amount repaid on 8.06.2004 by complainant by  raising new loan and after adjusting this amount, some amount towards principal and interest was still due in the loan case of 1995 which was waived by the Bank as per Relief Scheme of 2012 on 12.11.2012 and closed the account of complainant. Again complainant did not repay any amount regarding loan taken by him in year 2004. Account statement is Ex Op-11 and 12. So, in January 2015, availing one time settlement scheme of the OP, he got adjusted his loan account by making payment of Rs 6,58,863/- on 28.01.2015 as per prevailing scheme of that time. He raised a loan of Rs 3,31,000/-on 6.08.2004 and paid only Rs 6,58,863/- i.e even less than double of principal amount as per scheme of bank.  So, bank did not charge any illegal amount from the complainant. Question of inimical behaviour by OP towards complainant does not arise at all, rather complainant is a shrewd person, who is retired Deputy Manager of OP Bank and was fully aware of rules and regulations of Bank being retired as Deputy Manager filed this false and frivolous complaint against OPs to take illegal undue monitory benefit. After repayment of entire loan, bank duly issued No Due Certificate and letter to redeem the land mortgaged as security of the loan to complainant. The complainant cannot claim benefit according to the scheme notified vide Ex C-3 and 4 as it is issued on 9.03.2015 i.e after the settlement of loan of complainant, he can only claim benefit under the Scheme which was prevailing at the time of settlement of account. There is no deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Op. OP has prayed for dismissing the complaint with costs.

9                                                  We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

10                                                 The case of complainant is that he raised loan in year 1995 for grape farming and he became defaulter of the bank. As per policy of the bank, the bank cannot charge double of the principal amount in any case. The bank sanctioned a fresh loan in year 2004 in the name of complainant and out of amount of new loan they settled the earlier loan taken in year 1995 without the knowledge of complainant and now in January 2015, they demanded Rs 6,58,863/-from complainant as repayment of loan of Rs 2004. The complainant did not have knowledge of scheme of bank and paid this amount to them and in any case, the bank can only receive Rs 3,01,000/-i.e double of principal amount of loan of 1995, which was Rs 1,50,000/-.

11                                           In reply to the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OP argued that complainant is a retired Deputy Manager of bank and has full knowledge of rules and regulations of the Bank. As per scheme of the bank, his loan amount was restructured in the year 2004 by sanctioning a new loan to him and with the proceeds of new loan, his earlier loan was settled. He even did not repay the loan amount of loan raised in year 2004 and as per scheme of bank in One Time Settlement Scheme, loan taken by him in 2004 is settled. There is no deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part.

12                                           We have carefully gone through the case and from the perusal of evidence produced by bank, it is clear that complainant earlier raised loan in year 1995 and he did not repay the loan amount and his loan was restructured in 2004 and fresh loan was granted to him and earlier loan was got adjusted. He even did not repay the amount of 2^nd loan and on his request under the One Time Settlement Scheme of the Bank, his loan is adjusted on 28.01.2015 and he paid Rs 6,58,863/-. As per One Time Settlement Scheme (OTS) of the Bank, the bank can charge only double of the principal amount from the any account holder to settle their account. Complainant raised the loan of Rs 3,31,000/-in 2004 and as per scheme of bank, he has paid even less than double of the principal amount of the loan. Plea of the complainant that he is a rustic villager and does not know the rules and regulations of OP has no force as he is the retired Deputy Manager of OP Bank and had all the knowledge regarding the rules and regulations and procedures of OP Bank. His plea that at the time of sanctioning of fresh loan and adjustment of old loan out of that amount in year 2004 was not in his knowledge and deficiency on the part of OP has no force as at that time, he was in the service of OP Bank. Therefore, in these circumstances, complainant has failed to prove his case and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, complaint filed by complainant is hereby dismissed. In view of peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 11.12.2015

Member                Member                President     (Parampal Kaur) (P  Singla)        (Ajit Aggarwal)