Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/31

Chand Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Punjab and Sind Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gurtaj Sandhu

13 May 2016

ORDER

      DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

Complaint No. :        31

Date of Institution :  20.01.2016

Date of Decision :     13.05.2016

 

Chand Singh aged 77 years s/o Chet Singh r/o Village Behbal Kalan, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.                                                           .....Complainant

                   Versus

1. The Punjab & Sind Bank ltd, Branch Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot through its Manager.

2. The Punjab & Sind Bank ltd, Zonal Office, Sadiq Chowk, Faridkot through its Zonal Manager.

                                         ....Opposite Parties

    

   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 Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh R S Kakkar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

 

                                                      Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to issue No Due Certificate pertaining to RCL account bearing no. 101/35 ( New Account No. KCC 00901600010041) and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and inconvenience besides cost of litigation.

 2                                       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist and in 2005, he took a crop loan of Rs2,00,000/-from OP-1 after mortgaging his land measuring 19 kanals 10 marlas. Entry to this effect was made in revenue record vide Rapat No. 880 dt 3.08.2005. Account of complainant is running regular and he has never been a defaulter. In December 2015, complainant approached OP-1 with request to get deposited all the dues regarding his account and to issue No Due Certificate as complainant did not want to run the said account because requirement of complainant was more and he wanted to get increased the agricultural limit from Kotak Mohindra, but OP-1 put off the matter on pretext or the other and asked him to visit after some days. On 29.12.2015, complainant again approached OP-1 with request for getting deposited the remaining dues and to release No Due Certificate, but OP-1 declined his request on the ground that due to some embezzlement in Bank, the matter is under investigation with CBI. Complainant requested OP-1, that his loan account has no concern with said case as case is pertaining to year 2009 and complainant is regularly paying  all the dues up to date but to no effect. Action of Ops in not getting deposited the dues from complainant and in not releasing No Due Certificate to complainant amounts to deficiency in service and it has caused great harassment and mental tension to complainant. Complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint and has further prayed for compensation and litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                        The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 27.01.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

  4                                      On receipt of the notice, the Ops filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties as complainant did not appear before OP-2, then, he can not sue them as such and complaint is premature, wrong and misconceived. Moreover, till the payment of outstanding amount to OP-1, complaint is premature. However, on merits, Ops have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that from the account statement of complainant, it is clear that his account is not regular. It is  asserted that complainant never approached OP-1, rather OP-1 is paying visits to the house of complainant for repayment of the outstanding amount, which he has failed to repay as complainant is lingering on the repayment on one pretext or the other. Denying all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect, ld counsel for Ops further averred that after admitting the availing of the credit facilities and the balance of Rs 1,97,908.45/-, the complainant executed the balance confirmation letter in favour of bank on 11.12.2014 and a sum of Rs 2,12,79.90 exclusive of interests from 1.01.2016 is recoverable from the complainant and till the repayment of this amount, complaint filed by complainant is premature. As outstanding amount alongwith up to date interest thereupon is still to be paid by complainant, therefore, complainant has no right to level false allegations of deficiency in service. It is further averred that lending loan is no service and the complainant is not the consumer of Ops. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party. All other allegations and 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 her affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-4 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                             In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Mohinder Pal Singh, Chief Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank as Ex. OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 and  Ex OP-3 and then, closed the evidence.

 

                            

7                               Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally contended that complainant is an agriculturist and in 2005, he took a crop loan of Rs2,00,000/-from OP-1 by mortgaging his land and entry to this effect was made in revenue record of village Sivia vide Rapat No. 880 dt 3.08.2005. Copy of jamabandi is Ex C-3. Account of complainant is running regular and he has never been a defaulter. In December 2015, complainant approached OP-1 and requested them to get deposited all the dues regarding his crop loan account and issue No Due Certificate as complainant did not want to run the said loan account because requirement of complainant was more and he wanted to get increased the agricultural limit from Kotak Mohindra, but OP-1 did not hear his request and put off the matter on pretext or the other and asked him to visit after some days. On 29.12.2015, complainant again approached OP-1 and made request for getting deposited the remaining dues in respect of his crop loan account and to release No Due Certificate, but OP-1 declined his request on pretext that due to some embezzlement in Bank, the matter is under investigation with CBI. OP-1 also issued a certificate to this effect, copy of which is Ex C-2. Complainant requested OP-1, that his loan account has no concern with said case as case is pertaining to year 2009 and complainant has been regularly paying all the dues up to date but to no effect. This act of Ops in not getting deposited the dues from complainant and in not releasing No Due Certificate to complainant amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment to him. To prove his case, complainant has stressed on documents Ex C- 2 to 4, which clearly show that land of complainant is mortgaged with Ops.

8                               Repelling all the allegations levelled by complainant counsel, ld counsel for Ops vehementally argued that complainant did not appear before OP-2 and therefore, he cannot sue OP-2 as such and thus, complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties. Moreover, till the payment of outstanding amount to OP-1, complaint is premature. Ld Counsel for Ops further argued that account statement of complainant, clears the point that his crop loan account is not regular. It is further averred that complainant never approached OP-1, rather OP-1 is paying visits to the house of complainant to recover the outstanding loan amount, which complainant has failed to repay as complainant is lingering on the repayment on one pretext or the other. It is further averred that after admitting the availing of the credit facilities and the balance of Rs 1,97,908.45/-, the complainant executed the balance confirmation letter in favour of bank on 11.12.2014 and a sum of Rs 2,12,79.90 exclusive of interests from 1.01.2016 is recoverable from the complainant and till the repayment of this amount, complaint filed by complainant is premature. Copies of statements of account are Ex OP-2 and OP-3. As outstanding amount alongwith up to date interest thereupon is still to be paid by complainant, therefore, complainant has no right to level false allegations of deficiency in service. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party. Ld counsel for Ops has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

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

 10                                   From the careful observation of evidence produced by complainant and Ops, it is clear that complainant is consumer of Ops and his land is mortgaged with them. Ex C-3 is the copy of jamabandi clearly showing the fact regarding mortgaging of land of complainant with Ops. Ex C-4/ copy of pass book justifies the point that complainant availed KCC limit of Rs2,00,000/- from Ops and his account is regular, but it also reveals the inability on the part of Ops in not releasing No Due Certificate to complainant due to some investigation being pending with CBI, which is clear from the certificate issued by OP-1, copy of which is Ex C-2. It is admitted fact that complainant availed cash credit limit from Ops and his account is regular and he wants to deposit the remaining amount with Ops. Ops also admit this fact and in order to prove that some amount is still due towards complainant and to recover the remaining amount alongwith interest due towards complainant against his KCC limit, they have produced on record copy of account statement of complainant as Ex OP-2 and Ex OP-3. However, OP Bank is liable for deficiency in service in not releasing No Due Certificate to complainant as requested by him and its amounts to trade mal practice. As such, complainant is entitled for relief sought. Equally, complainant is also liable to make payment of amount due towards him on account of KCC limit availed by him.

11                                                In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances of this case, complaint in hand is hereby allowed with direction to Ops to issue No Due Certificate to complainant subject to payment of loan amount due alongwith interest towards him pertaining to his loan account bearing no 101/35 (old) and new a/c no. KCC 00901600010041. However, in peculiar circumstances of case, there are no orders as to costs. Both complainant and Ops/Bank are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, complainant is entitled to proceed against OPs Bank under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 13.05.2016

 

Member             Member             President         

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