Haryana

StateCommission

A/281/2016

SONEPAT URBAN COOP.BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

TIALK RAJ NANDA - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.GOYAL

27 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

                             First Appeal No  :         281 & 323 of 2016

                             Date of Institution:       05.04.2016 & 12.04.2016     

                             Date of Decision:         27.05.2016

 

 

Appeal No.281 of 2016

 

The Manager, The Sonepat Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, HO New Subzi Mandi, Sonepat.

                             Appellant-Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

Tilak Raj Nanda son of Mool Chand Nanda, resident of DB-1027, Sudama Nagar, Sonepat.

Respondent-Complainant

 

Appeal No.323 of 2016

 

 

 

Tilak Raj Nanda son of Mool Chand Nanda, resident of DB-1027, Sudama Nagar, Sonepat.                      

Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

The Manager, The Sonepat Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, HO New Subzi Mandi, Sonepat.

Respondent-opposite party

 

 

CORAM :            Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                  

Present:              Mr. A.K. Goyal, Advocate for The Sonepat Urban Cooperative Bank Limited

                             Mr. R.P. Verma, Advocate for Tilak Raj-Complainant

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned appeals bearing No.281 & 323 of 2016 filed by The Manager, Sonepat Urban Cooperative Bank Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘Bank’) and Tilak Raj Nanda-complainant respectively because they have arisen out of common order dated March 03^rd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘District Forum’) in complaint No.255 of 2015. 

2.      The complainant took loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the bank by mortgaging original sale deeds and map.  He repaid the entire loan.  The bank issued No due Certificate to the complainant.  On April 28^th, 2015, the complainant moved application to the Bank to return his original documents but to no avail. 

3.      The Bank in its reply pleaded that the loan amount was repaid by the complainant.  It was denied that the complainant had deposited original sale deeds with bank.  The Bank tried to resolve the controversy but the loan file of the complainant could not be traced.  

4.      The Bank has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the original documents viz. sale deed and original map were returned to the complainant during pendency of the complaint.   So, question of directing the Bank to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant does not arise.

5.      On the other hand, complainant has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the District Forum.

6.      After evaluating the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on the record, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed the complaint directing the Bank to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

7.      It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant was advanced a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- by the bank. The complainant repaid the loan amount to the bank.  No Due Certificate was issued by the bank to the complainant.  The complainant requested the bank to return original documents but the bank did not pay any heed.  The original documents were returned to the complainant by the bank, that too, when the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.  Certainly, it was deficiency in service on the part of bank in not returning the documents immediately upon receipt of application and repayment of entire loan by the complainant, for which the complainant has been adequately compensated. Thus, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. Both the appeals are dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.12,500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 27.05.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK