Haryana

Kurukshetra

88/2017

Ram LaL - Complainant(s)

Versus

UBI - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

30 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.88 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 24.04.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:30.10.2018.

Ram Lal son of Sh. Lachhman Dass, resident of House No.71/7, Brahma Colony, Amin Road, Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

Union Bank of India, Main Branch Subhash Mandi, Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.

….Respondent.

BEFORE     Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Sh. Jitender Kashyap, Legl Aid Counsel for the complainant.

                Sh. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate for the OP.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Ram Lal against Union Bank of India, the opposite party.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the Op bank informed the complainant in the month of June, 2016 that the complainant is guarantor of Ambey Cement Store and mortgaged his residential house No.71/7, Brahma Colony, Kurukshetra.  It is alleged that the complainant objected the same strongly as he never given any guarantee of M/s. Ambey Cement Store.   It is further alleged that the complainant has never given any guarantee of extended figure of Rs.20 lacs and in case they have any guarantee papers with them for extended figure of Rs.20 lacs can be produced in this Forum.  It is further alleged that a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- has been withdrawn by the Op from the account number 8180 and an FD of Rs.1,90,000/- in the year 2016 of the complainant without any information given to the complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Op and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Op to give guarantee papers to extend amount of Rs.20 lacs, if held with them and to pay Rs.2,50,000/- including interest and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony. 

3.            Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the present complaint is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties as the complainant has not arrayed the borrower (which is his son’s Firm) a party to the present complaint; that the complainant has duly guaranteed the loan/financial facilities granted to M/s. Ambey Cement Store, a firm of his son by the Op bank and has duly mortgaged his house No.70, Brahma Colony, Gol Bank, Kurukshetra.  The borrower (A firm of real son of the complainant) has siphoned and diverted the funds disbursed by the Op bank and the account has become NPA.  The bank has initiated action under SARFAESI Act, 2002 to realize the securities secured to it.  The complainant has indirectly tried to stall the action taken by the Op bank under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 as amended upto date.  Section 34 of the said Act clearly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court against the action.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             In support of his case, the counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and thereafter closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.             On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/O and documents Ex.RW1/A to Ex.RW1/N and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Op.

6.             We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant has not given any guarantee of M/s. Ambey Cement Store at any time.  He has given the guarantee of Surya Building only on 15.09.2014.  At the time of arguments, the counsel of complainant gave some documents regarding the complaint which the complainant has filed in criminal case regarding forgery of Op.  The second document placed on the file by the counsel of complainant copy of an order of Chief Manager, FGMO Delhi dated 28.09.2017 in which it was declared by the bank itself that “We understand that the guarantee obtained from Shri Ramlal Suri for Rs.10.00 lakh Housing Loan was mis-utilized by the branch and used the document and made a composite guarantee.  It is pertinent to mention that for the loan sanctioned under MSME for Rs.6 lakh, guarantee should not be collected or insisted for an amount upto Rs.10 lakh.  However, branch preferred to obtained the guarantee for this facility too, which is not as per the norms of bank. 

                Term Deposit with Maturity value of Rs.1.90 lakh.  The deposit in the name of Shri Ramlal Suri was withdrawn prematurely without obtaining his mandate and credited to SB A/c No.201/8180 of Shri Ramlal Suri on 31.03.2016.  As per the letter dated 23.08.2017, the term deposit is with the complainant Shri Ramlal Suri.  Amount of Rs.2.20 lakh was transferred from SB A/c. of Shri Ramlal Suri to M/s. Ambey Cement Store without obtaining the mandate on 31.03.2016 (It is a transfer entry, however, in the finance it is entered as CASH.”

                So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Op to withdraw the amount of FD from the account of complainant without any consent or notice to the complainant.              

8.             Learned counsel for the Op contended that the complainant gave guarantee of M/s. Ambey Cement Store, the documents in this regard are Ex.RW1/A to Ex.RW1/D which are signed by Ram Lal.  He is the guarantor of M/s. Ambey Cement Store and in default of that, they withdrew the amount of guarantor with the consent of complainant but he has not given any document regarding the consent or notice to the complainant.

9.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case and on perusal of file, it was seen that the FD of Rs.1,90,000/- was got made in the year 2016. From the documents placed on the file, it is clear that the Op has withdrawn the amount on 31.03.2016 without any consent or notice to the complainant.  So, there is a clear cut case of deficiency on the part of Op.

10.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we partly allow the complaint and direct the Op to pay the amount of Rs.2,20,000/- as shown in Ex.C4 to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization.  The Op is also directed to pay R.30,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation charges.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.: 30.10.2018.

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.