Punjab

Ludhiana

EA/15/19

Vijay Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uco Bank - Opp.Party(s)

BK Rampal adv

17 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Execution Application No:19 dated 14.01.2015                              

                    Date of decision: 17.03.2023. 

 

Vijay Rani w/o Sh.Shiv Lal r/o village & P.O.Lalton Kalan, Tehsil & District Ludhiana.

                                                                             Decree holder/complainant.

                                                Versus

UCO Bank, village Lalton Kalan, Tehsil & District Ludhiana through its Branch Ma nager.

Judgment Debtor/Opposite party

Execution Application U/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH.JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For decree holder/complainant                   :         Sh.B.K.Rampal, Advocate

For judgment debtor/opposite party :         Sh.Vaarul Jain, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                The decree holder/complainant has filed the present execution application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act whereby he sought the enforcement of order dated 27.09.2012 passed by Learned Predecessor of this Commission in Complaint No.243 of 15.03.2012. The decree holder/complainant has claimed the refund of excess amount of Rs.1,38,181/- stated to have been received by the decree holder from the JD/OP.

2.                JD/OP has appeared and filed the objections and vehemently denied the allegations of decree holder/complainant as pleaded in the execution application and it has been submitted that as per the orders of this Hon’ble Forum, the litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- were paid to the complainant on 8.11.2012. Further, the interest was calculated by the respondent and sent for approval/sanction to DGM, Zonal Office, Law Department, Chandigarh and after receiving the said approval, the amount of Rs.31,590/- was granted for refund to the complainant. The respondent many times tried to contact the complainant for refund of the amount but the complainant did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of the respondent and instead file an execution application, upon which, respondent appeared and submitted a pay order dated 7.5.2013 for Rs.31,590/- which was accepted by the complainant and withdrawn the said execution application. Present execution application filed just to harass the answering respondent and therefore, it is prayed that the execution application may kindly be dismissed.

3.                During the course of execution proceedings, decree holder/complainant filed objection to the statement of account filed by the respondent in the Court whereby decree holder/complainant assailed the statement of account of respondent being wrong and manipulated on the grounds as given below:-

a)The complainant has paid Rs.5000/- as proceedings charges on 30.12.2003. The respondent again claimed Rs.1300/- as documentation charges on 4.5.2009. The complainant is not liable to pay any documentation charges again and again.

b)In his statement of account, the respondent has charged the interest on 1.7.2004 of Rs.1590/-, which was not mentioned in the earlier statements of account supplied by the respondent in the Court and the respondent also charged the interest of Rs.1590/- is on the higher side.

c)The respondent has claimed the insurance charges of Rs.4212/-. The complainant made the payment in cash to the insurance company through respondent/OP, so the respondent is not liable to pay the insurance charges.

d)The respondent charged heavy interest on 24.09.2004 of Rs.6875/-, this rate of interest is on the higher side.

e)The respondent has claimed the inspection charges on different dates. Nobody inspected the premises of the complainant, so the complainant is not liable to pay the same.

f)The complainant made the installments of August 2009 to December 2009 every month. So the interest may be calculated on each month, but the respondent intentionally claimed the interest of Rs.13,059/- one time in the statement of account, which is on the higher side.

g)The respondent has charged loan run down balance charges but the complainant is not liable to pay such amount.

h)The respondent has charged Rs.1000/- of certified copy but the complainant has not asked for certified copy. So, she is not liable to pay the same.

i)The respondent has charged review charges. The account review is the course of the respondent, so the complainant is not liable to pay the same.

                   Hence, it is prayed that the amount as sought in the execution application may kindly be refunded to decree holder/complainant.

4.                In reply to the objections to the statement of account filed by the JD/OP, they have specifically denied the objections raised by the decree holder/complainant being wrong and it has been submitted that the respondent charged the processing fee as well as documentation charges and other charges as per bank guidelines and the same were charged from the decree holder/complainant after the inspection of the account, wherein it was pointed out that proper interest has not been charged in this particular account, by the inspectors. Further, it is pertinent to mention that before 2009, the interest was calculated manually and in 2009, the accounts were migrated to computerized system from manual system and the computerized system calculated if any shortfall in interest was there in all accounts. Resultantly, Rs, 13,059/- one time interest was charged, as in the account of the complainant, less interest was charged. Further, it has been submitted that the charges for certified copy are required to be paid to the Advocate for getting issued certified copy of the sale deed of the property mortgaged with the bank from the office of Sub-Registrar, Ludhiana and the said charges are to be paid by the borrower. Thus, no excess amount has ever been charged. Hence, it is prayed that execution application may kindly be dismissed with costs.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record on the file.

6.                Perusal of record shows that earlier the complainant filed the Complaint No.243 of 15.03.2012 before this Commission against the OP which was allowed by the Learned Predecessor of this Commission vide order dated 27.09.2012. The following observations were made by the Learned Predecessor of this Commission while allowing the aforesaid complaint:-

“So, in view of the above discussion, we hereby allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OP to charge the rate of interest as per the terms and conditions already enumerated in the Loan Agreement Ex.R1 and not to charge the rate of interest more than as agreed. Further, OP is directed to refund the amount if any charged on account of excessive interest and credit the same in the account of the complainant and further, OP is directed to consider the proposal if any mad by the complainant for one time settlement. Further, OP is directed to pay Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation costs to the complainant. Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of present case, no order as to compensation is passed. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to the record room.”

7.                Perusal of record further shows that thereafter, the complainant/decree holder had filed an execution application No.11 of 15.01.2013 which was dismissed as withdrawn by counsel for the decree holder by suffering statement on 31.05.2013. In the said statement, the fact regarding receiving of Rs.31,590/- vide pay order bearing No.558053 dated 7.5.2013 drawn on UCO Bank, Lalton Kalan Branch has been duly mentioned.

8.                However, decree holder/complainant in her objection to the statement of account filed by the JD/OP, she has assailed the entries before passing of the order under execution dated 27.09.2012 passed in CC No.243 of 15.03.2012. Even at the time of withdrawal of the an amount of Rs.31,590/- in previous execution application No.11 of 15.01.2013, such objections were not raised by the decree holder/complainant. So, the decree holder/complainant is now estopped from raising such objections and claiming refund of the amount. The act and conduct of the decree holder/complainant also amounts to waiver of her right. More so, when the loan account has already been settled by the JD/OP and it appears that the complainant/decree holder is just flogging a dead horse. In these circumstances, the execution application as well as objection to the statement of account filed by the decree holder/complainant is hereby dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)             (Jaswinder Singh)      (Sanjeev Batra)                        Member                     Member                      President      

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:17.03.2023.

Gurpreet Sharma