Haryana

Panchkula

CC/253/2020

RAJINDER KUMAR SHARMA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE GOVERNOR,RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON.

14 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	253 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	25.08.2020
Date of Decision	:	14.12.2022

 

Rajinder Kumar Sharma S/o Late Sh.Rameshwar Dass Sharma permanent resident of Village and Post officer Hangola, Tehsil Raipur Rani, District Panchkula(Haryana) and presently  residing  at House No.38/1, Subhash Nagar, Manimajra(U.T.) Chandigarh.

    ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                   

1.     The Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office Building, 18^th floor, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai-400001.

2.     The Managing Director, State Bank of India, Corporate Office, State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.

3.     The Chairman, State Bank of India, Corporate office, State Bank  Bhavan, Madame Came Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.

4.     The Ombudsman, State Bank of India, Mark’s Road, Bangalore-560001.

5.     The General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Sector-17/A, Chandigarh-160017.

6.     Sh. Surinder Kumar Chauhan, the then Branch Manager SBI, Raipur Rani, District Panchkula, presently posted at SBI, Regional Business Office, Plot No.1-2, Sector-5, Panchkula(Haryana).  

                                                                       ……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.

                        Sh.R.L.Korotania, Authorised representative of OP                            no.1.

                        Sh. Vikas Chauhan, Advocate for OPs No.2,3,5 & 6.

                        OP No.4 already ex-parte vide order dated 09.11.2021.

                       

ORDER

(Per Satpal, President)

 

1.             Briefly stated the facts of the case are that  the loan  amounting to Rs.3,00,000 under Kishan Credit Card(hereinafter referred to as KCC was sanctioned  by OP No.5 in favour of the complainant on 10.09.2015, which was transferred in the account of the complainant vide loan account no.65241655143 on 16.09.2015 by the Branch Manager, SBP Raipur Rani. The complainant made the payment of interest as well as the loan amount as per the demand raised by the Branch Manager, SBP, Raipur Rani. As averred in the complaint, the details about the letter vide which the demand was raised and the amount deposited by the complainant along with date is given in the tabular form as under:-

Sr.No.	Date of letter vide which demand was raised	Amount  as demanded(Rs.)	Date of deposits by the complainant	Amount deposits(Rs.)
1	02.11.2015	5000/-	30.11.2015	5000/
2	02.05.2016	3,12,000/	16.05.2016 & 19.05.2016	1,62,000/ & 150,000/
3	16.09.2016	3,14,600/	05.11.2016	3,14,600/
4	11.04.2017	3,14,900/	22.05.2017	3,14,900/
5	10.10.2017	4,820/	30.11.2017
6	25.10.2018	3,23,009.67	15.12.2018	3,28,839/

 

It is alleged that the complainant used to deposit the loan amount alongwith interest as and when demanded by the OP No.6 but no demand was raised in the month of April, May, 2018 and accordingly, no amount was deposited by the complainant. It is alleged that the Branch Manager, SBI, Raipurani issued the letter dated 25.10.2018 asking the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.3,23,009.67 and in this regard, the complainant met the OP No.6 on 03.11.2018 Saturday requesting him to provide him the benefit of 3% interest as per subvention scheme admissible in KCC loan. It is alleged that the complainant, on the assurance of OP no.6 to the effect that the complainant would be given the benefit of 3% interest under the subvention scheme under KCC loan, gave a blank cheque no. 978853 on 03.11.2018 Saturday to him OP No.6. It is averred that a sum of Rs.3,28,839/ was deducted on 15.12.2018 from the account of the complainant against the amount of Rs.3,23,009.67 as demanded by OP No.6 vide letter dated 25.10.2018 and  that the said KCC loan account no.65241655143 was closed by OP no.6 at the request of the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant tried to contact the OP no.6 several times on his Mobile No.9816624653 but no response was received. It is alleged that the complainant wanted to inform the OP no.6 that the said KCC loan facility be not closed as the same was required  by him(complainant) but after a lapse of one and a half month, OP No.6 deducted a sum of Rs.3,28,839/ on 15.12.2018 by filling the said blank cheque. It is alleged that a sum of Rs.5,827.33 was deducted in excess of the demand raised vide letter dated 25.10.2018 for a sum of Rs.3,23,009.67. Further, it is alleged that after the closing of said KCC account, no dues certificate was not issued to the complainant despite the fact that he met OPs No.5 & 6 several times but the same was not issued to him till 16.05.2019. Further, it is alleged that all the relevant papers, which are required for availing the KCC Loan, were submitted by the complainant in the office of OP No.6 but the loan was not sanctioned and thus, a complaint was lodged on 29.06.2020 with OPs No.1 to 5. Due to the act and conduct of OPs, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared through authorized representative Sh.R.L.Korotania, AGM O/o Banking Ombudsman and filed its written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable as OP No.1 has not entered into any banking transaction with the complainant. The complaint against OP No.1 is barred by virtue of provisions contained in Section 58-A of RBI Act 1934 Read with Section 54 of Banking Regulation Act, 1949; there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No.1 and thus, the complainant is not a consumer of OP No.1; the OP No.1 is neither a necessary nor a proper party. It is averred that two complaints from the complainant were received. The first complaint was received on 10.08.2020, on which the OP No.5 was instructed to take up the matter for subsidy and credit the same to the account of the complainant. The OP no.5 was directed to calculate outstanding dues, issue NOC and charge rate of interest  @7% for KCC.

                The second complaint was received, which was disposed, vide order dated 20.08.2020 and again the similar directions were issued to OP No.5. It is averred that OP No.5 vide its letter dated 28.07.2020 had asked the complainant to visit the branch office for processing of loan application but the complainant neither visited the branch nor submitted his KYC documents. The OP NO.5 has further conveyed that it had asked the complainant vide letter dated 13.08.2020 to visit the branch but no response was received from the complainant; thus, it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1, as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

                Upon notice, the OPs No.2,3 & 5 appeared through counsel and filed a joint written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of the complaint on several grounds such as no locus-standi; concealment of true facts; mis-joinder of necessary parties; estoppels; no cause of action etc.  On merits, the averments made by the complainant has been denied for want of knowledge, it is submitted that the grievances of the complainant relates to OP No.6 and thus, no deficiency can be attributed on their part. It is also averred that   the complainant has not approached the Ombudsman of the Bank and thus, the same has been unnecessarily impleaded in the complaint. It is denied that the complainant has made any complaint on 29.06.2020; thus, it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.2,3 & 5, as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

                Notice was issued to the OP No.4 through registered post, which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OP No.4; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OP No.4, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 09.11.2021.

                Upon notice, the OP No.6 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections as well as on merits in his written statement. It is alleged that OP No.6 was posted as Branch Manager in State Bank of India, RaipurRani in July 2018 and held the post till first week of May 2019; the complaint is not maintainable as it is barred by law of limitation.

                On merits, it is contended that KCC loan was given for a period of 60 months, which was repayable soon after the harvesting and sale of each crop produce. It is alleged that the complainant was irregular in making the repayment as is evident from notice(Annexure C-14). It is denied that the bank used to issue notice for loan installment to the borrower. Further, it is alleged that the complainant was not paying regular installment and thus, the bank had to give the notice to the complainant asking for repayment of loan installment. It is denied that the complainant was entitled for the benefit of interest under the KCC loan account. It is alleged that no request for giving the benefit of interest under the subvention scheme under the KCC loan account was made by the complainant to OP No.6. It is also denied that any blank cheque was received from the complainant as it was against rules and practice. It is also denied that the complainant given the blank cheque on 03.11.2018 on the asking of the OP No.6. It is specifically denied that the amount of Rs.3,28,839/- was filled in the cheque by OP No.6. It is submitted that, as per Annexure C-14, outstanding amount was Rs.3,23,009.67 as on 25.10.2018 but the loan was closed on 15.12.2018 with the outstanding balance of Rs.3,28,839/- of that day. It is alleged that the complainant himself submitted the cheque on 15.12.2018 to close the KCC loan account. It is denied that OP No.6 kept the blank cheque no.978853 without date with him for a period of about a one and half month; thus, it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.6, as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3.             Separate replications, to the written statements filed by the OPs No.1 & 2,3, 5 & 6, were filed by the complainant reiterating the contents of the complaint while controverting the contentions of the OPs.

4.             The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with document Annexure C-1 to C-20 and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Annexure R-1/A along with documents Annexure R1/1 & R1/4 and closed the evidence. The ld. counsel for the OPs No.2,3,5 & 6 has tendered affidavit Annexure R-2/A along with documents Annexure R2/1 and closed the evidence.

                During arguments, the learned counsel for the Ops No.1,2,5 & 6 has  placed on record  certain documents i.e. Closure of the KCC account,  the  application of the complainant and terms and conditions of the KCC loan. The said documents are taken on record as Mark ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘C’ for the adjudication of the controversy in a proper and fair manner.

5.             We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for OPs No.1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 and gone through the entire record available on file including written arguments filed by complainant as well as OP No.1, minutely and carefully.

6.             During arguments, the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint as well as into affidavit Annexure C-A, separate replications filed on 09.11.2021 and written submissions contended that there have been gross lapses and deficiencies on the part of Ops on several counts as alleged in the written statement and thus, the complaint deserves acceptance by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

                The complainant, apart from the averments made in the complaint, has raised additional plea that the OPs no.2, 5 and 6 Branch Manager, SBI, Raipurani have failed to provide him the KCC loan facility despite  the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court  in the CWP No.15757 of 2020 vide order dated 27.11.2020.

7.             The OP No.1 has resisted the complaint mainly on the ground that it had not provided the direct services to the complainant and thus, no liability can be fastened upon it. Sh.R.L.Korotania, who is a authorized representative on behalf of OP no.1, while reiterating the averments made in the written statement and written submission, contended that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in  Section 58-A of RBI Act 1934 read with Section 54 of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. He further contended that the complainant did not avail any direct services from OP no.1 and thus, the complainant is not a consumer of OP No.1.

8.             Now, turning to the version of Ops No.2,3 & 5, it is found that the complaint has been resisted  by raising preliminary objections as well as on merits in the written statement. Vide preliminary objections, it is submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has got no locus-standi to file the present complaint.

                This objection is rejected in view of the fact that the complainant was undisputedly a consumer of the Ops No.2,3 5 & SBI, Raipurani vide KCC loan account no. 65241655143.

                The next objection that the complainant has not come with clean hands is also rejected for want of clarification as to what facts have been concealed by him.

                The next objection qua the mis-joinder of the necessary parties is also rejected as the complainant is a consumer of SBI at Raipurani, which is supervised by OP no.5 and OPs No.2 & 3. On merits, the only defense, which is taken in the written statement, is that the grievances of the complainant are mainly directed against the OP No.6 only; hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua Ops No.2, 3 & 5.

9.             The OP No.6, who has directly provided the services to the complainant vide said KCC loan account has contested the complaint by raising preliminary objections as well as on merits in his written statement.

                In preliminary objections, it is submitted that Sh. Surinder Kumar Chachun i.e. OP No.6 was posted in the branch of SBI, Raipurani w.e.f. 2018 as Branch Manager till the first week of May 2019. Further, it is stated that the complaint is not maintainable and the same is barred by law of limitation; thus, is liable to be dismissed.

                The objection qua the complaint being time barred is rejected as the complainant is continuously alleging the lapses and deficiencies on the part of the OPs since 29.06.2020; thus, the complaint has been filed within a period of limitation. 

                The complainant had lodged a complaint(Annexure C 17 & C18 on 29.06.2020 with the OPs No.1 to 5. Apart from it, the OP No.4 taking cognizance on the complaint lodged by the complainant, directed the Ops No.5 & 6 to take suitable action vide its letter dated 11.08.2020 and 20.08.2020; thus, the present complaint being lodged on 20.08.2020 was filed much before the expiry of prescribed period of limitation.

                On merits, it is contended that KCC loan was given for a period of 60 months, which was repayable soon after the harvesting and sale of each crop produce. The learned counsel contended that the complainant was irregular in making the repayment of loan amount as well as interest as is evident from notice Annexure C-14. It is contended that no recovery notice as alleged by the complainant was required as per terms and conditions of the KCC Loan. Further, it is contended that the recovery notices were issued to the complainant as he was not paying the loan amount as well as interest in time. The learned counsel vehemently contended that no blank cheque as alleged by the complainant was handed over to OP No.6 on 03.11.2018. It is further argued that the KCC loan account of the complainant was closed on his request. The learned counsel reiterating the averments made in the written statement refuted all the allegations levelled by the complainant against OP No.6 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint being frivolous and baseless. 

10.  

1. That no recovery notice was issued by SBI, Raipurani to the complainant in the month of April/May,2018 asking him to deposit the loan amount including interest before due date.
2.  That SBI, Raipurani had raised the demands in recovery notices of different amount of interest during the period from 2015 to 2018 whereas the loan amount was the same i.e. Rs.3,00,000/ thus,  the complainant was not given the benefit of interest of 3% under subvention scheme as admissible to the complainant vide KCC w.e.f. 2015 to 2017.
3. That an amount of Rs.5,827.33 was wrongly charged on 15.12.2018 in excess of the demand raised amounting to Rs.3,23,839/vide notice dated 25.10.2018.
4. That the OP No.6 had taken the blank cheque no. 978853 without date from the complainant on 03.11.2018 and kept the same with him till 15.12.2018 and closed the KCC loan account of the complainant without his consent  and information.
5. That the SBI, Raipurani has failed to issue the No Dues Certificate despite the fact that his KCC loan account was closed on 15.12.2018.
6. That the SBI, Raipurani has failed to provide the KCC facility to the complainant despite the fact that all necessary papers qua granting of KCC Loan has already been submitted with SBI, Raipurani after the order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the Hon’ble High Court P & H in CWP No.15757 of 2020 O & M titled as Rajinder Kumar Sharma Vs. Union  of India & Others.

The deficiencies as on the part of the Ops at serial no. 1 to 3 are taken up together for discussion being inter-related and intermixed with each other. As per complainant, no recovery notice was issued by SBI, Raipurani to him in the month of April/May 2018 askinghim to depositthe loan amount includinginterest before due date. According the complainant, the issuance of notice by OPs to the complaint was necessary as it was being issued to him in every years i.e. w.e.f 02.11.2015 till 10.10.2017. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs No.2,3,5 & 6 relying upon the terms and conditions, which are contained in Mark ‘C’ has contended that no such notice as alleged by the complainant was necessary and that repayment of loan or its interest was to be made by the complainant/loanee himself after the harvest and sale of the produce in every crop season.

11.  
12.  

The agricultural Cash CreditLimit it will remain in force for a period of 60 months from the date of availment andshall be repaidsoon afterharvestand sale of produce which should beensuredat the earlieston/or before.

3.  

The interest on the loan will be charged  % above the Prime Lending AdvanceRate rising and fallingtherewith a minimum of 7% P.A. with half yearly rests.

 

12.  
13.  
14.  
15.  
16.  
17.  
18.  
19.  

 20.             As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-

1. The OPs No.5 & the Branch Manager, SBI, Raipur Rani, Panchkula are directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,319/ to the complainant, along with interest  9%  S.I per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
2. The OPs No.5 & the Branch Manager, SBI, Raipur Rani, Panchkula are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/ to the complainant on account of delayed issuance of No Dues Certificate to him.
3. The OPs No.5 & the Branch Manager, SBI, Raipur Rani, Panchkula are further directed to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.7,000/ to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.
4. The OPs No.5 & the Branch Manager, SBI, Raipur Rani, Panchkula are further directed to extend the KCC loan facility to the complainant, if the same has not been given so far to him, subject to the completion of all required formalities by the complainant.

21.            The OP No.5 & the Branch Manager, SBI, Raipur Rani, Panchkula shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OPs No.5 & the Branch Manager, SBI, Raipur Rani, Panchkula. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 14.12.2022

 

 

 

        Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini            Satpal

                Member                   Member                       President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                              Satpal

                                             President