Order by
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he is an agriculturist of village: Galouti, Tehsil: Dharmkot, District Moga and borrowed loan in the shape of Agricultural Cash Credit Limit from Opposite Party No.1 and at that time, Opposite Party No.1 bank got signed blank cheques from the complainant. The complainant alleges that he could not repay the loan amount in time, and hence the Opposite Party No.1 filled one of those cheques and filed a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act in the court of Ld.Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Moga and in the said complaint, the Opposite Party No.1 claimed Rs.6,35,000/- from the complainant and during the pendancy of the complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, compromised arrived at between the complainant and Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties agreed to accept the total amount of Rs.6 lakhs from the complainant and accordingly, the complainant paid the amount of Rs.6 lakhs and in view of the said statement, the said complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act stands dismissed. Thereafter, the complainant raised the demand of No Due Certificate from the Opposite Parties, but at that time, the Opposite Parties again raised a demand of Rs.69,590/- from the complainant to which the complainant is not liable to pay. In this way, the Opposite Parties have violated the terms and conditions of the compromise and order passed by the court of Ld.Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Moga. But under the stress and duress the complainant was compelled to make the aforesaid amount of Rs.69,590/- to the Opposite Parties. The aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- To refund the amount of Rs.69,590/- i.e. Rs.35,200/- balance of cheque amount and Rs.34,390/- as interest which was forcibly recovered by the Opposite Parties from the complainant and also to pay Rs.1 lakh on account of compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment besides Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation or any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper may be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, the complainant has filed the complaint for the redressal of his grievance .
2. Upon notice, Opposite Parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has suppressed and concealed the true and material facts and did not narrate the real facts in the complainant. Actual facts are that as per the record of loan case file of the complainant, the complainant borrowed a loan of Rs.5 lakhs as Reversible Agricultural Cash Credit Limit from the Opposite Parties and for the repayment of due amount of said loan, he issued a cheque dated 26.10.2017 for Rs.6,35,200/-, but the same was dishonoured and Opposite Parties filed a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and thereafter, as per the compromise arrived at between the complainant and Opposite Parties, said complaint filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act has been withdrawn by the Opposite Parties bank. Further alleges that said compromise had affected only relating the cheque amount and only with regard to the complaint case neither any compromise had affected relating the whole loan amount due towards the complainant and nor any statement was recorded to issue the No Due Certificate to the complainant rather the complainant had requested the Hon’ble Court as well as to the Opposite Parties bank that he is ready to pay Rs.6 lakhs out of the cheque amount alongwith remaining loan amount and also requested to revise his loan account and as per the request of the complainant, after receiving Rs.6 lakhs, the Opposite Parties bank withdrawn the said complaint filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. In the month of February, 2019 the complainant again borrowed the limit amount and the loan account of complainant is regularly maintained. As per the record, the loan of Rs.5,24,667/- is due against the complainant till March, 2019 so there is no question of issuance of any No Due Certificate and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. On merits, the Opposite Parties took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In order to prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Nachhatar Singh, Manager Ex.Ops1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OPs2 and OPs3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the Parties and also gone through the evidence produced on record.
6. Ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that the complainant borrowed loan in the shape of Agricultural Cash Credit Limit from Opposite Party No.1 and at that time, Opposite Party No.1 bank got signed blank cheques from the complainant. Further contended that the complainant could not repay the loan amount in time, and hence the Opposite Party No.1 filled one of those cheques and filed a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act in the court of Ld.Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Moga and in the said complaint, the Opposite Party No.1 claimed Rs.6,35,000/- from the complainant and during the pendancy of the complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, compromised arrived at between the complainant and Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties agreed to accept the total amount of Rs.6 lakhs from the complainant and accordingly, the complainant paid the amount of Rs.6 lakhs and in view of the said statement, the said complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act stands dismissed. Thereafter, the complainant raised the demand of No Due Certificate from the Opposite Parties, but at that time, the Opposite Parties again raised a demand of Rs.69,590/- from the complainant to which the complainant is not liable to pay. In this way, the Opposite Parties have violated the terms and conditions of the compromise and order passed by the court of Ld.Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Moga. But under the stress and duress the complainant was compelled to make the aforesaid amount of Rs.69,590/- to the Opposite Parties and the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that as per the record of loan case file of the complainant, the complainant borrowed a loan of Rs.5 lakhs as Reversible Agricultural Cash Credit Limit from the Opposite Parties and for the repayment of due amount of said loan, he issued a cheque dated 26.10.2017 for Rs.6,35,200/-, but the same was dishonoured and Opposite Parties filed a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and thereafter, as per the compromise arrived at between the complainant and Opposite Parties, said complaint filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act has been withdrawn by the Opposite Parties bank. Further alleges that said compromise had affected only relating the cheque amount and only with regard to the complaint case neither any compromise had affected relating the whole loan amount due towards the complainant and nor any statement was recorded to issue the No Due Certificate to the complainant rather the complainant had requested the Hon’ble Court as well as to the Opposite Parties bank that he is ready to pay Rs.6 lakhs out of the cheque amount alongwith remaining loan amount and also requested to revise his loan account and as per the request of the complainant, after receiving Rs.6 lakhs, the Opposite Parties bank withdrawn the said complaint filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. In the month of February, 2019 the complainant again borrowed the limit amount and the loan account of complainant is regularly maintained. As per the record, the loan of Rs.5,24,667/- is due against the complainant till March, 2019 so there is no question of issuance of any No Due Certificate and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. It is not disputed that the complainant availed loan of Rs.5 lakhs as Reversible Agricultural Cash Credit Limit from the Opposite Parties and for the repayment of due amount of said loan, he issued a cheque dated 26.10.2017 for Rs.6,35,200/-, but the same was dishonoured and Opposite Parties filed a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and thereafter, as per the compromise arrived at between the complainant and Opposite Parties, said complaint filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act has been withdrawn by the Opposite Parties bank. The only contention of the complainant is that said compromise has been affected with the Opposite Parties with regard to whole due amount of the Opposite Parties with regard to loan obtained. But on the other hand, the Opposite Parties has contended that said compromise had affected only relating the cheque amount and only with regard to the complaint case neither any compromise had affected relating the whole loan amount due towards the complainant and nor any statement was recorded to issue the No Due Certificate to the complainant rather the complainant had requested the Hon’ble Court as well as to the Opposite Parties bank that he is ready to pay Rs.6 lakhs out of the cheque amount alongwith remaining loan amount and also requested to revise his loan account and as per the request of the complainant, after receiving Rs.6 lakhs, the Opposite Parties bank withdrawn the said complaint filed under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The bare perusal of the order passed by the court of Sh.Gurbhinder Singh Johal, PCS, Ld.Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Moga dated 28.11.2018 placed by the complainant himself on the record, clearly shows that complainant has suffered a statement that the compromise has been effected and accused paid total amount of Rs.6 lakhs out of cheque amount of Rs.6,35,200/- and no with regard to other due amount if any against the complainant. Hence, the aforeasid order passed by the court of Sh.Gurbhinder Singh Johal, PCS, Ld.Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Moga dated 28.11.2018 clearly shows that the said compromise was affected between the complainant and Opposite Parties with regard to cheque amount only and not any other due against the complainant.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint is not maintainable and the same stands dismissed. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
10. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as the situation arising due to outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19).
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated: 01.02.2022.
