Haryana

Karnal

571/2012

Surjeet Singh S/o Harkesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Karnal Central Coooperative Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswant Singh

24 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.571 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt.: 05.12.2012

                                                               Date of decision:24.05.2016

 

Surjeet Singh son of Shri Harkesh village Jaini, Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. The Karnal Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Mall Road, Karnal through its Chief Executive Officer.

2. Haryana Khadi and village Industries Board, SCO no.841 Kalka Road, Mani Majra, Chandigarh through its Chief Executive Officer (given up  0n 4.7.2013)

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-       Sh. Jaswant Singh  Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh. D.S. Mann Advocate for the Opposite party no.1

                    Opposite party no.2 given up.

 

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he had obtained a loan of Rs.3.60,000/- from opposite party no.1 Jundla Branch after depositing Rs.40,000/-  as margin money. The loan was received on 5.12.2005 under RCC Scheme. On that loan subsidy of Rs.one lac was to be given by opposite party no.2. Subsidy was received in his account on 18.7.2006 through cheque, but opposite party no.1 did not credit the same in his loan account. In addition to that Rs.70,000/-were recovered to him on 30.06.2006, but only an amount of Rs.35,000/- was credited in the account. Opposite party no.1 through Jundla Branch issued a notice dated 11.10.2010 for recovery of Rs.2,86,906/-, which was not correct as per agreement. He filed an application to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and enquiry was conducted by the Inspector Cooperative Societies Karnal III. Enquiry Officer submitted the report, according to which subsidy amount was not paid to him and the amount of Rs.35,000/- was not credited in his account. Ultimately, he got served legal notice dated 1.10.2012 upon the opposite party no.1, but the same also did not yield any result.  Thus, there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party no.1 due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the complaint is bad for want of notice under section 128 of the Cooperative Societies Act; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complaint is not maintainable in view of provisions of section 124 of the Cooperative Societies Act and that the complaint is an abuse of process of law.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant availed two loan facilities from the opposite party no.1. First loan was of Rs.3,60,000/-which was term loan and sanctioned on 8.3.2006. Another loan was RCC Limit against the hypothecation of agricultural land. In the first loan there was subsidy of Rs.1,00,000/- and the same was adjusted towards the loan amount upto 6.2.2013.  An amount of Rs.2,12,376/- was outstanding in the first loan and the amount of Rs.21104/- was outstanding against the RCC Limit uptill 6.2.2013. The complainant has not repaid the loan amount as per the repayment schedule and as such the account became Non Performing Assets (NPA). There was no subsidy in RCC account, therefore, there was no question of alleged amount of Rs.35,000/-adjusting in the account of the complainant. Factum of conducting enquiry by the inspector has been admitted.  The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                Opposite party no.2 was given up as necessary on 4.7.2013

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.PW/A  and documents Ex.C1 to C8  and Ex.C2/A have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party no.1, affidavit of R.K. Mehra Chief Executive Officer Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                Parties are not at dispute regarding the fact that the complainant had availed term of loan of Rs.3,60,000/- and another loan as RCC limit from opposite party no.1. Subsidy of Rs.1,00,000/- was to be paid by opposite party no.2 for the term loan. The complainant has alleged that the subsidy of Rs.1,00,000/- was received on 18.7.2006, but the same was not credited in his account. It has further been alleged that he had deposited Rs.70,000/- but only an amount of Rs.35000/- was credited in his loan account.

8.                The document Ex.C5 shows that Inspector Cooperative Societies Karnal III conducted enquiry regarding the loan account of the complainant under the order of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies Karnal and he submitted his report. As per his report the subsidy of Rs.1,00,000/- was received from Haryana Khadi Gram Udyog Karnal on 18.7.2006 by way of cheque, but the benefit of the same was given to the complainant on 21.4.2009. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the opposite party produced copy of the statement of account, according to which out of the subsidy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- an amount of Rs.90121/- was credited towards principal amount and the remaining amount of Rs.9879/- was credited towards interest in the loan account of the complainant on 21.4.2009. From this documentary evidence it stands established that the cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- as subsidy was received by opposite party no.1 on 18.7.2006. The opposite party was bound to credit the amount of subsidy in the loan account of complainant on the same day, but credited that amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 21.4.2009, which amounted to deficiency in service and certainly caused loss to the complainant, because he had to pay interest on the outstanding loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- till the subsidy was credited in his loan account.

8.                It is also clear from the report of the Inspector of Cooperative Societies that a cheque of Rs.70,000/- was obtained from the complainant, but only an amount of Rs.35,000/- was credited in his account and the remaining amount of Rs.35,000/- credited in the account of his brother Satbir Singh, who had also obtained loan under the same scheme. The opposite party no.1 has produced the copy of one writing signed by Surjit Singh for adjusting the cheque in his  loan as well as in the loan of his brother Satbir Singh. As per enquiry report also the amount of Rs.35000/- was adjusted in the loan account of the brother of the complainant. When the complainant had himself given in writing for adjusting the said amount in the loan account of his brother it does not lie in his mouth, at this stage, to agitate that the amount was wrongly adjusted in the loan account of his brother. After giving such consent by the complainant it cannot be said in any manner that there was any deficiency in service or negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party no.1 by adjusting the amount of Rs.35,000/- in the loan account of his brother.

9.                In view of the foregoing discussion, we arrive at the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to the interest on the subsidy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from 18.7.2006 when the cheque of the subsidy was received by the opposite party no.1 till 21.4.2009 when the aid amount was credited in loan account of the complainant, at the same rate which was being charged from him for the loan advanced by the opposite party no.1 i.e. 12% per annum.

10.              Accordingly, the opposite party no.1 is directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum to the complainant on the subsidy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the period of 18.7.2006 to 21.4.2009 or adjust the amount of interest in his loan amount if any outstanding against him. We further direct the opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 24.05.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member