Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/130/2014

manmohan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

the manager central co. Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Mk Garg

24 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 130 of 2014

                                           Date of institution : 22.09.2014                                                  Date of decision    : 24.02.2016

Manmohan Singh aged about 63 years son of Sh. Gurcharan Singh, resident of village Sohavi Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

The Manager, Central Co-op. Bank, Branch Sanghol(Ucha Pind) Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib

…..Opposite Party

Complaint Under Sections 12 to  14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                             

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                       Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                                     Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member                                         

Present :  Sh.M.K.Garg, Adv. counsel for the complainant.                                      Sh.J.S.Chahal, Adv.Cl. for the OP.

ORDER

 

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                 Complainant, Manmohan Singh aged about 63 years son of Sh. Gurcharan Singh, resident of village Sohavi Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The OP alleged that the complainant had taken a loan from it on 25.04.2001 under the name and style of M/s Mangat Furniture House being the proprietor of the same. But the complainant never borrowed any amount from the OP in the name of said firm or in the shape of any other loan till date and nothing is due towards the complainant. Moreover, the complainant neither remained the partner/proprietor of the said firm nor running the same.  The complainant is actually a driver by profession and since 1989 he is doing the work as driver. He went abroad in connection with his employment of driver in the year 1994 and came back in India in the year 1999 and since then he is doing the work as driver. It is further stated that the concerned cooperative society of the resident of the complainant is The Hargana C.A.S.S. Ltd; Hargana not Ucha Pind. It is further stated that Avtar Singh and Gurbachan Singh are shown as personal guarantor in the alleged loan of Rs.25,000/-. Avtar Singh was previously working as Secretary of The Hargana C.A.S.S.Ltd; Hargana and now he is the Secretary of the Bathan Kalan C.A.S.S. Ltd; Bathan Kalan, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib.  The said Avtar Singh is having a Agency of Ambey Company and to make the complainant a member of the said Company he approached the complainant in the year 2001 and he forced the complainant to make the member of said Ambey Company and obtained signatures of the complainant on so many papers and at the time of obtaining the signatures he might have obtained the signatures of the complainant on the said bank forms with pre planned manner and with the connivance of the Manager of the said Bank/society  and later on he might have used the same in obtaining the loan in the name of alleged firm M/s Mangat Furniture House. It is further stated that the complainant never received any amount from the said bank and even that he never visited the said bank for any purpose.  In the year 2008 the Manager of OP threatened the complainant to recover the amount of Rs.50,000/- through police and he by adopting the illegal procedure and means to recover the said amount, prepared the documents against him and got issued the arrest warrants and the complainant remained in Jail Premises for about 40 days. After coming from the Jail Premises, the OP again threatened the complainant to recover the said amount by way of attaching the property therefore the complainant filed a suit for permanent injunction, which was dismissed on 15.07.2014 due to non jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. The OP is threatening the complainant to recover Rs.75,000/- against the said loan of Rs.25,000/-. The complainant so many times requested the OP to issue full detail of the alleged loan and certified copies of the documents on the basis of which the alleged loan shown to be issued in the name of complainant but the OP failed to issue the certified copy of the documents and details of the alleged loan rather threatening on the telephone to deposit the alleged loan amount, for which the OP has no right to do so. Thus, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OP not to recover any amount from the complainant and further to issue full detail regarding the alleged loan and all the documents, on the basis of which the alleged loan has been shown to be issued in the name of complainant and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant.
3.           The complaint is contested by the OP. In reply to the complaint, the OP raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is not maintainable and the same is misuse and an abuse of the process of law; the complainant has not come to court with clean hands; the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. As regards to the facts of the complaint, the OP stated that the complainant being a proprietor of M/s Mangat Furniture House had taken a loan of  Rs.25,000/- from it on 25.04.2001 for his business and executed various documents so required for the loan. The complainant also offered the personal guarantee of Avtar Singh and Gurbachan Singh. The OP has every right to recover the loan amount as per rules and regulations. It is further stated that the OP issued the full details of the loan and copies of the documents on the basis of which the loan was sanctioned and issued in the name of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.              In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OP tendered in evidence true copies of documents i.e. application Ex. OP-1, copy of order of Lok Adalat Ex. OP-2, inquiry report dt. 31.07.2008 Ex. OP-3 and affidavit of Bhupinder Singh Ex. OP-4 and closed the evidence.

5.              The ld. counsel for the complainant has stated that the complainant had never taken any loan from the OP in the name and style of M/s Mangat Furniture House. He stated that the OP had failed to produce any document, proving that the alleged loan was taken by the complainant on behalf or in the name of M/s Mangat Furniture House. The ld. counsel has pleaded that the OP has failed to prove on record that the complainant was the proprietor or had any kind of relation with the said firm. The ld. counsel also pleaded that this fact has been admitted by the OP in their pleadings, that the said loan was sanctioned to the complainant being the proprietor of the said firm but the OP failed to place any such document on record. The ld. counsel argued that the OP has relied on the alleged documents with regard to the loan in Para No.8 of the reply but failed to place the same on the record in order to prove their version, hence adverse inference be drawn. The ld. counsel also argued that the said loan issued in personal capacity is the result of fraudulent act of the OP. The ld. counsel further argued that from the act and conduct of the OP, it is established that the OP has committed deficiency of service and the complainant deserves to be compensated.

6.              On the other hand the ld. counsel for the OP has submitted that no deficiency in service has been committed by the Op, as alleged by the complainant. He stated that the relevant documents, with regard to the loan, have been placed on record and it is well established from Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 the decision of the lok adalat that the complainant had taken the said loan and he is liable to pay the same. The ld. counsel pleaded that the complainant being a proprietor of M/s Mangat Furniture House had taken a loan of Rs.25,000/- from OP, on 25.04.2001 for his business and executed various documents so required for the loan. He argued that the Op has the right to recover the same from the complainant as per the law.

7.              After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, in our opinion, the documents placed on record by the OP i.e Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 do not state that, Manmohan Singh, proprietor of M/s Mangat Furniture House had taken a loan of Rs.25,000/- from OP, on 25.04.2001. The OP has failed to produce on record, that the complainant had taken the said loan being the proprietor of M/s Mangat Furniture House. This Forum had also directed the OP to produce the said loan documents being relied upon by the OP in para no.8 of the written version but the OP failed to supply the same despite taking several opportunities. In our view the complainant has established that he had not taken any loan representing himself as proprietor of M/s Mangat Furniture House and nor the OP has been able to prove the same.

8.              Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the OP has failed to place on record any material document proving that complainant had procured the said loan by representing himself as proprietor of M/s Mangat Furniture House. However, it has been established from the material placed on record, that the said loan had been taken by the complainant in his personal capacity.  The complainant has also alleged that the said loan was sanctioned by fraud, thus he is not liable to pay the same. We find that the Op has committed deficiency in service by not supplying the relevant documents to the complainant, proving that the said loan had been taken by complainant, by representing himself as proprietor of M/s Mangat Furniture House. Hence the complainant is entitled for compensation for mental agony alongwith litigation cost amounting to Rs.5,000/-.With regard to the loan sanctioned in the personal capacity of complainant, we grant liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate Court of law for redressal of his grievances, if complainant feels that he has been cheated by the OP or if any fraud has been committed by the OP. The complainant may be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II(1995) CPJ 1 (SC)  for the purpose of exclusion of time spent before this Forum. The present complaint stands partly accepted. 

9.              The present complainant could not be decided within the stipulated period, as both the parties were interested in out of court settlement.      

 

10.            The arguments on the complaint were heard on 15.02.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated 24.02.2016

(A.P.S.Rajput)                          President

 

(Veena Chahal)                        Member

     

(A.B.Aggarwal)                       Member