First Appeal No. 2009/728

(Arising from the order dated 06.07.2009 passed by District Forum(South West) Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No.451/2009)

Sh. Shail Sahni, … Appellant/Complainant

III/127, Gopi Nath Bazar, in person.

Delhi Cantt., Delhi

Versus



1. Punjab National Bank ... Respondent/OP
Gopi Nath Bazar Branch,
Delhi Cantt. Delhi.



2. Sh. K.K. Bishnoi,

Chief Manager,
Punjab National Bank
Gopi Nath Bazar Branch,
Delhi Cantt. Delhi.
CORAM



Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President

Sh. M.L. Sahni … Member



1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? YES



2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES



Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President(ORAL)
1. The appellant had applied for issuance of Gold Credit Card to the OP which was declined. He filed a complaint before District Forum, which was summarily rejected on 06.07.2009 at the stage of admission.

2. That is how the appellant comes here in appeal.

3. We have heard the appellant at the stage of admission.

4. The appellant seems to be under the impression that he can force the respondent OP Bank and its Chief Manager to issue credit card, but the discretion of the bank has its own significance. The appellant has referred to the guidelines dated 06.03.2007 issued by Reserve Bank of India on “Fair Practices Code for Lenders”. The relevant portion of which is as follows: -

“4. ….. Further in terms of para 2(i)(d) of the above Circular dated 05.05.2003, banks FIs were advised that in the case of small borrowers seeking loans upto Rs.2 lakhs the lenders should convey in writing, within stipulated time, the main reason/reasons which, in the opinion of the bank/FI have led to the rejection of the loan application.

5. On a view, it has been decided that in case of all categories of loans irrespective of any threshold limits, including credit card applications, banks/FIs should convey in writing the main reason/reasons which, in the opinion of the bank/FI have led to the rejection of the loan application.



5. In the first place, these are mere guidelines and are not laws or rules, which may be binding on the bank, though the banks are supposed to give due weightage to them. But that is, where the buck, ends.

6. Besides what the Reserve Bank of India mentioned in the guidelines is that the bank should give reasons for rejection of an application for issuance of credit card. The bank in reply to the application given by the appellant under the Right to Information Act 2005, mentioned that the appellant can approach in appeal to Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai against the rejection of his application, but the appellant did not appeal before Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai and instead filed a complaint before District Forum.

7. In the circumstance, the District Forum was justified in rejecting the complaint off end.

8. Appeal dismissed in limine.

9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

10. Announced on the 11th day of November 2009.

F.A.No.678 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.NO.574 OF 2004 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-III HYDREABAD
Between

1. Shri Shivdatrai Educational and Charitable Trust
rep. by its Trustee, Mr.M.L.Agarwal,
S/o late Shri G.R.Agarwal, aged about 69 years
Occ: Trustee, R/o 2-1-113, Tobacco Bazar
Secunderabad-003 ( A.P.)

2. Mr.Mohan Lal Agarwal S/o Sri Prahalad Rai Agarwal
Aged about 71 yrs Occ: Trustee R/o 1-9-8,
Industrial Area, Azamabad, Hyderabad-020

3. Mr.Mukundlal Agarwal S/o late Sri Sundermal Agarwal
Aged about 67 years, Occ: Trustee
R/o 2-1-41, Tobacoo Bazar, Secunderabad-003

4. Mr.Inder Karan Agarwal S/o Sri Bilasrai Agarwal
Aged about 55 years, Occ: Trustees
R/o 21-2-211, Pathergatti, Hyderabad-002

Appellants/ complainants

A N D

The Branch manager
Punjab National Bank
Charminar Branch, patel market
Hyderabad-002

Respondent/ opposite party



Counsel for the Appellants Sri G.Venkatswamy Goud

Counsel for the Respondent Sri K.Suryanarayana





QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDHULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER

&

SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER

THURSDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

TWO THOUSAND NINE
( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)

The appeal is filed by the unsuccessful complainant challenging the order of the District Forum-III Hyderabad in C.D.No.574 of 2004.

The facts leading to filing of the complaint are that the appellant, Sri Shivdatrai Educational and Charitable Trust had taken on hire locker no.118 on 26.7.2000 from the respondent bank having executed a deed with instructions to the respondent bank to permit any two of the four trustees who had signed the deed. The Manager of the respondent bank had not allowed the locker being operated. One of the trustees Sri Bilasrai relinquished his trust ship but he had not handed over the key of the locker by stating that it was misplaced. Therefore the appellant trust had requested the respondent to break open the locker in the presence of all the trustees. The appellant trust had got issued legal notice dated 6.4.2004 with a demand to break open the locker and make inventory of the securities kept in lock. The respondent had not given any reply. The securities kept in the locker are discharged and some of them had expired for not having been renewed. For the securities which were not renewed the appellant trust would incur heavy loss in the shape of interest which amounts to Rs.3 lakhs. The appellant trust had suffered mental agony due to the non-cooperation of the manager of the respondent in permitting them to break open the locker. Hence, the appellant filed the complaint seeking damages to the extent of Rs.3 lakhs and compensation an amount of Rs.one lakh in addition to the costs of the proceedings.

The respondent resisted the plea. It was contended that the complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of all the trustees representing the appellant trust. The appellant trust has suppressed the material fact that as and when any account is to be opened in the name of the trust the respondent bank would obtain copy of trust deed and also resolution of the members of the trust in regard to the operation of the trust account and mode of operation thereof. As per the trust deed the affairs of the trust would be managed by the trustees whose number should not go below four at any time. In other words a minimum number of four trustees is required to operate the account of the appellant trust. On 12.12.2002 the appellant trust had informed the respondent bank that one of the trustees Mr.Bilas Rai had relinquished his trust ship and as such the existing three trustees alone are authorized to operate locker. In another letter dated 14.5.2003 signed by three trustees it was stated that one of the trustees Bilas Rai had resigned from trust and he had not handed over the key of the locker. Hence, it was requested for breaking open of the locker. The appellant has also addressed a letter dated 27.6.2003 in response to which the respondent has issued reply dated 6.3.2003 and 13.6.2003 requesting the appellant trust to furnish information regarding inclusion of any trustee as required by the terms of the trust deed. Another letter dated 28.6.2003 was also addressed to the appellant trust informing it that the composition of the trust was short of the required number as per the terms of the trust deed.

The appellant through its letter dated 3.7.2003 informed the respondent bank that it had expelled one of the trustees Sri Inderkaran and therefore left with only three trustees. Thereafter, the respondent bank had addressed letters dated 5.7.2003, 10.7.2003 and 14.7.2003 informing the appellant that as per the terms of the trust deed there should be at least four trustees and any one of the permanent trustees to the trust deed can nominate a male lenial dissident family member as trustee in his place and as such signatures of at least four trustees was required for operation of the locker. The request made by the three trustees will not be valid as per clause IV of the trust deed. Thereafter several letters dated 18.10.2003, 1.11.2003 were addressed in this regard to the appellant trust. The appellant trust had taken the matter to the higher authorities of the respondent bank and also filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman. After enquiry the Ombudsman by his order dated 20.1.2004 had not found any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank. The Ombudsman held that certain internal differences among the trustees as also that the respondent bank had to permit the operation of the locker as per the instructions given by the all the trustees. The appellant is a trustee and it cannot complain of any mental agony. The appellant had made allegations in its notice dated 6.4.2004 against the Banking Ombudsman that he had passed an exparte order against the principles of natural justice. The complaint signed by M.L.Agarwal alone is not maintainable. The complaint has to be signed and verified on behalf of the trust but not in individual name of the trustee. Co-trustees are joint owners and they must act jointly but not individually

The District Forum has dismissed the complaint holding that as per the terms of the trust deed four trustees are required to operate the locker as also the legal issues raised by the respondent bank can only be decided by a civil court.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the appellant trust has filed the appeal contending that the District Forum has failed to understand the nature and scope of the Clause V of the Trust Deed and it had not perused the trust deed, Ex.A14 as also the authorization executed by the trustees authorizing M.L.AGarwal one of the trustees to file cases against the respondent bank. It was also stated that the District Forum has failed to appreciate the order of the Banking Ombudsman.

The points for consideration are:

1) Whether the complaint filed by the appellant trust is maintainable?

2) Whether the locker hired by the appellant trust can be operated by three trustees in terms of the trust deed?

3) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank?

4) To what relief?



The District Forum has not transmitted the records in spite of a specific direction issued thereto on 13.12.2006. Hence, we proceed with the matter by perusal of the copies of the documents record made available on the record by the appellant and in the light of written arguments of both the parties.

POINT NO.1 The appellant trust at the time of its inception consisted of six trustees of whom a trustee Shivdatrai died. Thereafter the trust continued to be managed by the remaining five trustees. Mr.Bhuramal is a trustee for his life time and the other four trustees are the permanent founder trustees having power to nominate any of their respective family members. Clause No.IV of the Trust Deed Ex.A14 reads as under:

The affairs of the trust shall continue to be managed by the trustees who number shall not exceed six nor go below four at any time.



It is incorporated in the trust deed that the death or retirement of a trustee will not affect the continuance of trust as the vacancy caused in the case of founder trustee’s death will be filled in by the nominee who is appointed by the trustee during his life time. One of the trutees Sri Bilas Rai relinquished his trust ship and the trust was left with three trustees. The appellant trust had hired the locker bearing No.118 with the signatures of all the four trustees, i.e., Bilasrai, Maniklal, Mohanlal and Mukundlal. The appellant had addressed letter dated 12.12.2002 that Bilasrai relinquished his trust ship and he being no more a trustee of the appellant trust, remaining three trustees are authorized to operate the locker. Further, in the letter it was stated that Mr.Inder Karan was having business deals and account with the respondent bank. It was requested that Inder Karan cannot be permitted to operate the locker without the signature of the “existing three trustees”. It is the appellant’s version that at the time of hiring of the locker it was agreed that any two trustees can operate it. There is no evidence on record to the effect and this fact is established by letter dated 14.5.2003 addressed by the appellant trust to the respondent bank that after resignation of Bilasrai, the existing three trustees passed resolution empowering any of the two trustees to operate the locker.

In the letter dated 7.10.2003 the appellant trust had stated that the locker was hired by the trust in trust’s name with signatures of all the four trustees with instructions that any two trustees can operate. One of the trustees Bilas Rao had relinquished his trusteeship and nominated his son Inder Karan. Further, it is stated that Inder Karan expelled from the trust on 27.9.2002.

In the letter dated 21.10.2003 the appellant trust had stated that there were only three trustees existing. The relevant portion of the letter is extracted below:

The above locker was hired by this trust in the trust’s name, with signatures of all four trustees with instructions that nay two trustees can operate which please note. One of the trustees Sri Bilasrai has relinquished from the trust and nominated his son Mr.Inder Karan. Mr.Inder Karan was expelled from the trust on 27.9.2003 and in respect of this Xerox copy of relinquishment and Board resolution copy signed by all the trustees was submitted to the branch but the branch is not adopting the right view and insisted for the signatures of Mr.Bilasrai which is utterly wrong?”



Having thus the matter stood so, the appellant trust had impleaded three names as the appellants, Mohanlal Agarwal, Mukundlal Agarwal and Inder Karan in the appeal without there being any impleadment of the three such persons in the complaint. According to the version of the appellant trust in the letters relevant portion of which was extracted hereinabove, the trust as on the date of filing of the complaint was consisting of three trustees, Bilasrai having relinquished his trusteeship and Inder Karan having been expelled from the trust. Interestingly, the name of Inder Karan is added as appellant No.4 in the appeal. The appellants no.2 to 4 were impleaded as individuals in the appeal without any notice having been served on them. The appellants no.2 to 4 have not signed the appeal nor were they impleaded in the complaint. Hence, the complaint was filed without making all the trustees as complainants.

The appellant is a trust registered under Indian Trusts Act, cannot be considered as complainant and it cannot be held that the appellant trust can invoke the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act. The Hon’ble National Commission in “ Pratibha Pratisthan & Ors Vs Allahabad Bank & Ors” reported in IV (2007) CPJ 33 (NC) held that the complaint filed by a trust is not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It was held that :

Further, in support, the learned counsel for the opposite party bank has rightly pointed out an observation from DJ Hayton, Hayton & Marshall Commentary and Cases on The Law of Trusts and Equitable Remedies, wherein it has been observed that –

“ A trust, unlike a company, ahs no legal personality; thus, it cannot own property for entering into contracts, sue or are sued. It is the trustees who own the trust property, enter into contracts, sue or are sued. A trustee as such has no distinct legal personality in his representative capacity separate from himself in his personal capacity”



Considering the aforesaid definition of the word, “person”, a public trust is not ‘person’ which can be considered to be a ‘consumer’ entitled to file complaint before the Consumer Forum. The reasons are:

1) Trust is not included in the definition of the word ‘person’. The Legislature included cooperative society under the definition person but not ‘public trust’;

2) Secondly, trust is not a legal entity.



Hence the complainant, Pratibha Pratishthan Trust, which is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, cannot be considered to be ‘person’ which can file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

On the same analogy, the appellant trust cannot file a complaint invoking the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and as such the complaint is not maintainable. .

The appellant trust states that the nominee of Bilasrai is Inder Karan was likely to operate the locker and requested the respondent bank not to allow him to do so without the signature of three existing trustees. It is also the case of the appellant trust that Bilasrai relinquished his trusteeship and retained the key of the locker with him. Therefore, it is seen that the trustees have been imputing the charges of fraud against one another and in that event the trustees being party to the fraud, the complaint filed by the appellant trust would not be a fit case for exercising the jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act as the very element of fraud had explicitly been made manifest through the letters addressed by the appellant trust to the trust bank. The appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons that the appellant trust is not the person entitled to file the complaint under the C.P. Act as also that all the trustees have not been made parties as the complainants as also for the reason that an allegation of fraud to have been committed by one of the trustees.

POINTS NO.2 TO 4 In view of the discussion held under point no.1 and the complaint is held to be not maintainable, There need be no discussion under these points as the point no.1 has been decided against the appellant trust.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Complaint Case 211/2008

Date of Institution 13-8-2008

Date of Decision 30-11-2009


Manish son of Sh. Sheetal Prasad Prop of M/S Yash

Enterprises Village and Post Office Kotli, Sub Tehsil Kotli , District Mandi, H.P.
…Complainant
V/S

1. M/S Saini Industries ,Near Punjab National Bank Dharamshala road at village and Post Office Gaggal, District Kangra , H.P. through its Prop. Sh.Gulshan Saini.

2. Manager/ Prop of M/S Dua Sons Industries Estate Opposite KW Cycle Link Road , Ludhiana .

…..Opposite parties
For the complainant Sh. P.R.Sharma , Advocate

For the opposite party No.1 Sh. Shyam Kumar Advocate.

Opposite party No.2 Exparte

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
ORDER.
This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite parties . The complainant averred that the opposite party No.1 advertised various self employment petty industry business in various newspapers to be started by unemployed of Himachal Pradesh for earning their livelihood and attracted by the above advertisement Annexure C-1 ,the complainant contacted the opposite party No.1 on telephone and asked for detail description and he was advised by the opposite party No.1 to install paper plates and Dona machine . Thereafter the opposite party No.1 personally visited the complainant at Mandi on 28-11-2007 and issued an invoice for installation of above Machine in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and further allured that above machine is under one year warranty against manufacturing defect. The complainant averred that he made order for supply of above machine with all accessories as mentioned in the invoice annexure C-2 and paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party No.1 and receipt in this regard was given on the top of invoice and assured to supply and install the machine within few days and installed the same on 9-12-2007. The complainant was issued cash memo dated 9-12-2007 bearing No.077 in the sum of Rs. 34,000/- and assured to provide the dyes and other accessories within one week and further assured to issue cash memo of balance amount of Rs.66,000/- received by the opposite party No.1 on 9-12-2007 in cash including the advance amount of Rs.10,000/- . The complainant further averred that he was also assured to issue one year warranty card of above machine . The dyes and other accessories were supplied by the opposite party No.1 within one week after 9-12-2007 and machine started functioning but on 5-1-2008, the above machine turned out of order due to some inherent manufacturing defect which was reported to the opposite party No.1 and which was repaired .Again on 12-1-2008, the machine turned out of order and after repeated requests the dye defect in the machine was again put in order but after one month the same again started giving problems which was reported to the opposite party No.1 on 25-2-2008 and on complaint the opposite party No.1 checked the other dye of Done machine which was also found defective and thereafter total machine turned out of order . A written complaint mentioning details of facts was sent to the opposite parties No.1 and No.2 for replacement of the defective machine with new one .Complaint dated 26-3-2008 was also sent to the opposite party No.1 which is Annexure C-3 and copy of cash memo of Rs.34000/- is Annexure C-4. The complainant averred that the opposite party No.1 did not bother either to replace the machine with new one or repair the same up to 26-4-2008 and in compelling circumstances legal notice was served upon the opposite party No.1 but of no avail . The complainant further averred that he had requested the opposite party No.1 telephonically to replace the machine and also to issue cash memo of balance amount of Rs.66,000/- but of no avail . The complainant further averred that the opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of paper plate machine and as such is jointly and severally responsible to replace the machine with one .With these allegations the complainant had sought a direction to the opposite parties either to replace the defective machine with new one without any extra charges or in the alternative refund Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% from 9-12-2007 till payment , to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation and the cost of the complaint had also been claimed.



2. The opposite party No.1 resisted the complaint and had raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable , and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint . The opposite party No.1 admitted the publishing of advertisement in the newspapers but denied that the complainant contacted the opposite party No.1 telephonically. It has also been denied that the opposite party No.1. visited the complainant at Mandi and issued invoice in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- inclusive of accessories . It has been submitted that the complainant came to Kangra and inquired regarding installation of paper plate machine upon which the opposite party No.1 informed him that he did not have fully automatic machine, however on his request , the opposite party No.1 offered its services to help in the purchase of machine as desired by the complainant. Initially the complainant intended to purchase the Power Press machine costing approximately Rs.1,00,000/- inclusive of all the accessories and the machine was to be supplied by the opposite party No.2 who is the manufacturer of the machine. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/ as an advance against the price of power plate machine ( automatic) without accessories . It has been denied that the complainant was allured that the machine shall carry one year warranty and rather he was made to understand that the machine did not contain any warranty. Later on the complainant changed his mind and instead of installing automatic power press paper plate machine, requested the opposite party No.1 to supply manual machine whose cost was Rs.32,000/- with no accessories which was supplied accordingly and cash memo to this effect was also issued to the complainant . The opposite party No.1 has denied that any assurance was made to the complainant either to supply dyes and other accessories and as such the question of issuance of receipt in the sum of Rs.66000/- did not arise . It has further been contended that the machine was functioning properly but mishandling of the same by the complainant had resulted in the malfunctioning and on request of the complainant same was checked and mended to his satisfaction. Receipt of the legal notice was admitted by the opposite party No.1. It has been admitted that the machine was manufactured by opposite party No.2 The opposite party No.1 had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3 The opposite party No.2 did not put in appearance and was proceeded against exparte .However, a reply had been received from it by post which had been taken on record wherein the complaint has been resisted and preliminary objections have been taken that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and him , that the opposite party has sold power presses to M/S Saini Industries vide invoice No.1568 dated 10-10-2007 and no guarantee was given as per Annexure R-1, that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the commercial transaction is involved . On merits , the opposite party No.2 has denied the contents of the complaint in toto and pleaded that there was no inherent manufacturing defect pointed out or mentioned by the complainant. The complaint has been sought to be dismissed with costs .



4. The complainant had filed rejoinder reiterating the contents of the complaint and controverting the allegations made in the reply .



5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record . The case of the complainant is a that he placed an order with the opposite party No.1 for the supply of Paper plate machine with all accessories and the aforesaid machine was installed on 9-12-2007 and in this respect a cash memo in the sum of Rs.34,000/- was also given to him and he was assured to provide dyes and other accessories and cash memo of balance amount of Rs.66,000/- received by the opposite party No.1 on 9-12-2007. Further case of the complainant is that dyes and other accessories were supplied by the opposite party No.1 within a week after 9-12-2007 but the machine started developing defect immediately after its purchase on 5-1-2008. According to the complainant , the opposite party No.1 rectified the defects on various occasions but ultimately the machine started giving problems and it turned out of order due to inherent manufacturing defect. As per the complainant, the opposite party No.1 was asked on various occasions to replace the machine and also to give the cash memo of balance amount of Rs.66,000/- but he is delaying the matter on one pretext or the other . Conversely the case of the opposite party No.1 is that initially the complainant intended to purchase paper plate machine costing Rs.1,00,000/- inclusive of all the accessories but later on the complainant changed his mind and instead of installing automatic power plate machine, he requested the opposite party No.1 to supply the manual machine the cost of which was Rs.34000/- with no accessories and the same was supplied and cash memo was issued to the complainant . The opposite party No.1 had denied that any assurance was given either to provide the dyes and other accessories or he agreed to supply the same and as such the question of issuance of receipt in the sum of Rs.66,000/- did not arise . It has been stated by the opposite party No.1 that the machine is manufactured by the opposite party No.2 and the same had developed defect due to mishandling by the complainant . The case of the opposite party No.2 is that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party No.2 as he had sold the machine in question to the opposite party No.1 and no guarantee was given . Further case of the opposite party No.2 is that there is no inherent manufacturing defect in the machine as pointed out or mentioned in the complaint by the complainant. Both the opposite parties have also contested the case on the ground that the machine has been purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose , therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.

6 The first question which arises for determination by this Forum is as to whether the complainant is not a “consumer” under the Act. The complainant in his complaint in para No.8 of the complaint has specifically mentioned that he was allured and motivated by the opposite party No.1 to start petty business of self employment by giving advertisements in various newspapers and thereafter the machine was supplied by the opposite party No.1 and the same was installed in the premises of the complainant. In the rejoinder, it has been mentioned by the complainant that the machine was sold , installed and services were agreed to be provided by the opposite party No.1 at Kotli after negotiation for generating self employment to the complainant being unemployed . The complainant has pressed into service copy of pamphlet Annexure C-1 of the opposite party No.1 . The opposite party No.1 has not denied the authenticity of pamphlet adduced in evidence by the complainant . In our opinion ,when it has been specifically pleaded by the complainant that he has purchased the machine for self employment , he would definitely fall under the definition of the consumer as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the Act and this Forum has jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint.

7 Now the next question which arises for determination by this Forum is as to what was the price of the machine in question. According to the complainant, the opposite party No.1 had supplied and installed the machine on 9-12-2007 and issued cash memo No.077 in the sum of Rs.34,000/- and dyes and other accessories were also supplied to him worth Rs.66,000/- but the opposite party No.1 failed to issue the cash memo for balance amount of Rs.66,000/- received by it in cash . However, there is only one cash memo placed on record by the complainant i.e. Annexure C-3 dated 9-12-2007 which has been issued by the opposite party No.1 in the sum of Rs.34,000/-. The opposite party No.1 had denied the supply of dyes and accessories to the complainant and the receipt of Rs.66,000/- from him . Therefore, the onus was upon the complainant to prove that he had paid Rs.66,000/- on account of dyes and accessories but he had failed to adduced any evidence in this respect . Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the opposite party No.1 had supplied dyes and accessories of the machine worth Rs.66,000/- and had not issued the cash memo as alleged by the complainant. However, it has become clear that the complainant was supplied machine by the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 had received Rs.34,000/- as price of the machine which is evident from Annexure C-3.



8 Now the last question which arises for determination by this Forum is as to whether the machine in question supplied to the complainant is defective or not. It has not been disputed that the machine has been supplied to the complainant by the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of the same. The opposite party No.1 had not disputed that the complainant had purchased the machine from him on 9-12-2007. From the perusal of the record it has become clear that the machine developed defect for the first time on 5-1-2008 and thereafter he apprised the opposite party No.1 about its defect In this respect the complainant has placed on record letter dated 26-3-2008 annexure C-4 and legal notice Annexure C-5. The opposite party No.1 had also written letter dated 11-6-2008 Annexure C-6 and letter Annexure C-7 to the opposite party No.2 regarding defect in the machine of the complainant. Therefore, it has become clear that the machine supplied by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant is defective . According to the opposite party No.2 no warranty has ever been issued and it had neither assured nor given any warranty nor liable to replace the same and in this respect reliance has been placed by the opposite party No.2 upon the copy of Invoice Annexure R-1 wherein it has been mentioned that “ No guarantee after sale” . However in our opinion, both the opposite parties cannot escape from their liabilities because it has been proved by the complainant that the machine has developed defect immediately after its purchase . In our opinion , once the complainant has proved that the machine has developed defects, the onus shifts to the manufacturer to prove that the same did not suffer from any defect including manufacturing defect. To take this view we are fortified by the decision of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , New Delhi in the case titled Tata Motors Ltd vs Manoj Gadi and another 2009(1)CPC-82. The relevant portion is reproduced hereinabove:-

In our view , onus shifts to the manufacturer to prove that the vehicle did not suffer from any defect including the manufacturing defect once the consumer proves from job cards that the vehicle was taken on large number of occasion for removing one defect or the other .

In the present case merely by writing “ No guarantee after sale ”the opposite party No.2 cannot escape its liability because it has come on record that the opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of the machine and the opposite party No.1 had supplied the same to the complainant. Therefore, the onus was upon the manufacturer to prove and establish that the machine did not suffer from any defect including the manufacturing defect However, no evidence has been led by the opposite party No.2 to show that the machine in question is free from any defect including the manufacturing defect. The opposite parties have failed to establish that the machine became out of order due to mishandling of the same by the complainant. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record on the part of the opposite parties and in view of the fact that the machine developed defect immediately after its purchase and it is out of order , we have no hesitation to conclude that the opposite parties have failed to show that the machine in question is free from manufacturing defect and ,therefore, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to replace the same with new one .

9 In the light of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to replace the machine of the complainant with new one of same make and model within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which to pay the price of the machine i.e. Rs.34,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and Rs.1000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.

10 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties
free of cost as per Rules

11 File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced

Consumer Complaint No: 334/2006

Date of presentation: 16.11.2007

Date of decision: 30.11.2009
Amar Singh
… Complainant.
Versus

Punjab National Bank

Through its Sr. Regional Manager and others

…Opposite Parties.

For the complainant: Mr. Nitesh Gangta, Advocate vice

Mr. I.N. Mehta, Advocate.

For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Vinu Bhasin, Advocate

O R D E R:

The learned counsel for the OPs-Bank, has given a statement duly reduced into writing and signed by him that in case the complainant complies with the required formalities, which includes submission of documents, illegibility with regard to the title of his property, in that event, the OPs-Bank, is ready and willing to sanction the loan to him. The learned vice counsel for the complainant, on the instruction of the original counsel, has also given a statement duly reduced into writing and signed by him that the complainant, is, ready and willing to comply with the formalities, as required by the OPs-Bank, for sanction of the loan.

In the light of the statements of the learned counsel for the parties, duly reduced into writing and signed by them, the complaint is disposed of with a direction that the complainant shall complete the formalities, as required by the OPs-Bank, within a period of three weeks, after the date of receipt of copy of this order and on completion of the formalities, by the complainant, the OPs-Bank, shall consider the case of the complainant for sanction of the loan, within a period of two weeks. Hence, the complaint, stands disposed of in the above terms. However, the statement rendered by the learned counsel for the parties, shall also form part and parcel of this order. Their shall be no order as to the costs.

The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per procedure. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Complaint no.42/19.1.2009

Date of order: 12.11.2009.

Sunil Kumar son of Sh. Shiv Nath, resident of H. No.7321, Gali No.9, new Shakti Nagar, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana 141 008.
(Complainant)
Vs.

1. Punjab National Bank, Shivpuri Road, Ludhiana-141008, through its Manager

2. Om Parkash, dealing clerk in cheque matters, Punjab National Bank, Shivpuri Road, Ludhiana-141 008.

3. Punjab National Bank, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana 141008, through its Manager.



4. Punjab National Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana-141001 through its Manager.
Opposite parties)

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.

Smt. Priti Malhotra, Member.



Present:

Sh. Vijay Kumar Kalsi Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Bharat Bhushan Sharma Advocate for opposite parties.



O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1. Complainant has saving bank account no.3457000100322670 with Punjab National Bank, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana –OP No.3. One Mr. Vijay Kumar issued cheque no.291154 dated 20.8.2008 for Rs.20,000/-, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana in favour of the complainant. Complainant deposited the said cheque on 12.11.2008 with opposite party no.1-Punjab National Bank, Shivpuri Road, Ludhiana through its clerk OP No.2-Sh. Om Parkash. He issued the receipt of the cheque. Thereafter, complainant on 17.11.2008 and repeatedly subsequent thereto made enquiry from his bank-OP No.3, but amount of the cheque so deposited, was not credited to his account. Consequently, contacted OP No.1 & 2 time and again to know about fate of the cheque. Due to non crediting amount of the cheque to his account, contacted Manager of OP No.1, who directed OP No.2 to process the cheque, but they failed to pay or process the cheque, causing great harassment to the complainant. Then approached opposite party no.4 and made written complaint, upon which was intimated by opposite party that his cheque deposited on 12.11.2008 has been lost some where in the collection record and not traceable. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 called the complainant to office of opposite party no.1 to resolve the issue and pressurized him to accept photocopy of the lost cheque, which request he declined. Thus, by not crediting amount of the cheque to his account is claimed has caused inconvenience, mental tension, agony to the complainant, due to unfair trade practice by the opposite party. Hence, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for refund of Rs.20,000/- and sought compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.11,000/-.

2. Opposite parties-Punjab National Bank on merits, controverted allegations of the complainant. However, they admitted that cheque of Rs.20,000/- was deposited by the complainant with opposite party no.1-Bank on 12.11.2008. But pleaded that account number of the complainant with Punjab National Bank-OP No.3 was 3457000100322670. But in the pay-in-slip he had given account no.3031000100322670. Said cheque was presented to clearing house. As account number written by the complainant was not correct, so, cheque was rejected by the Regional Clearing Centre of the Bank with objection “No Account”. Then officials of RCC branch contacted the complainant on his mobile no.98559-41552 as written by him in pay-in-slip. He was conveyed message either to collect his cheque or tell the correct account number but he failed to meet the requirements. Then RCC branch of the bank at Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana sent cheque and pay-in-slip along with their letter dated 4.3.2009 to opposite party no.1. Because, the cheque was presented through them and code number of that branch was written. They requested to handover the cheque to the account holder i.e. complainant. Complainant had intimated having his account in Punjab national Bank, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana –OP No.3. Then opposite party no.1 on 30.12.2008 wrote letter to the complainant that cheque was sent to the RCC Ludhiana for collection along with other cheques on 12.11.2008, but same is not traceable from the said Branch. He then was issued letter dated 9.1.2009 requesting to collect image of the said cheque with the assurance that the sanctity of image is equivalent to original cheque as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. But he failed to collect the said image. In the mean time, opposite party no.1 received original cheque along with pay-in-slip from the branch of Punjab National Bank, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana along with letter dated 4.3.2009. Thereafter, complainant was tried to contact on his mobile which was found not functioning. Employee of opposite party no.1 also went to the house of the complainant on 25.3.2009 with the request to collect the cheque, but he did not turn up in the branch of OP No.1 to collect the cheque. After few days complainant came to the bank, but he refused to collect the cheque. So, left with no alternative except to send the original cheque along with pay-in-slip to the complainant through registered letter dated 2.4.2009. Further plea of the opposite party is that complainant had presented this very cheque earlier for payment through clearing, but the said cheque was returned not paid on 6.10.2008 with the memo “drawer’s signature incomplete”. It was thereafter that he deposited the cheque with OP No.1-Bank. So, claimed that there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint being false deserves dismissal.

3. In order to prove their respective contentions, both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and document.

4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

5. Fate of the complainant hinges on defence of the opposite party. Consequently we would outrightly prefer to refer such defence.

6. Ex.C. 1 is photocopy of the cheque dated 20.8.2008 bearing no. 291154 for Rs.20,000/- issued in favour of Sh. Sunil Kumar. Original of this cheque undoubtedly was deposited by the complainant on 12.11.2008 with Punjab National Bank, Shivpuri Road branch, Ludhiana, as apparent from voucher Ex.C.2 dated 12.11.2008. It is not in dispute that complainant had saving bank account with Punjab National Bank, Basti Jodhewal bearing account no. 3457000100322670. The cheque was presented in Punjab National Bank, Shiv Puri Road, Ludhiana, as all the branches of the bank were online for crediting their own accounts. In this slip/voucher Ex.C.2 complainant also mentioned his mobile number as well as account number to which amount was to be credited. Complainant himself wrongly may be by mistake inadvertently or otherwise mentioned account number as 3031000100322670. Though on back page of the cheque, he had mentioned his correct account number. Probably persons dealing with the matter, took up his account number as mentioned in memorandum Ex.C.2. Therefore, it is apparent that mistake, if any, proceeded itself on part of the complainant himself. He instead of recording his correct account number in the memorandum, under which the cheque was presented to opposite party no.1 for collection and crediting the amount to his account with OP No.3, recorded wrong account number in the memorandum/pay-in slip. For this mistake, he now wants to blame the opposite parties. But we can not permit him to do so. As no person can take benefit of his own wrongs.

7. The complainant has also tried to play trick with the Fora by suppressing material aspect. This very cheque, photocopy of which is Ex.C.1, was presented by him to his banker-OP No.3 for collection. That cheque was rejected as drawer’s signatures did not tally. Such aspect is apparent from statement of his bank account Ex.R.1 dated 7.2.2009. This shows that on 6.10.2008, his this very cheque of Rs.20,000/- bearing no.291154 was rejected as signatures of the drawer’s differed. It means, instead of getting fresh cheque from the drawer, containing his clear and full signatures as per specimen given by the drawer to the bank, he presented the same cheque with defective signatures of the drawer in another branch of the bank-OP No.1. But while doing so, mentioned wrong account number of his saving bank account to which amount was to be credited.

8. However, on behalf of the complainant, it is argued that mistake was inadvertent and opposite party knew his account number as reflected from register of instruments processed at RCC Ex.R2, wherein his correct account number is recorded. It may be that his correct account number in that register might have been mentioned on the basis of correct number mentioned by him on the back of the cheque. But in voucher Ex.C.2 had given wrong account number which created confusion in the matter.

9. Defence of opposite party-Bank is that original of the cheque in transit got missed and intimated complainant vide letter Ex.R.3 to obtain duplicate and vide letter Ex.R.4 asked him to collect image of the lost cheque. From letter Ex.R.6 dated 4.3.2009 apparent that complainant was intimated rejection of the cheque by RCC requiring him to mention correct number of his account. Then giving whole detail of the episode, issued registered letter Ex.R.9 dated 2.4.2009 under receipt Ex.R10 to the complainant.



10. No doubt, cheque initially deposited by the complainant got lost in transit. But as admitted by the complainant, they required complainant to obtain its image but he failed to do so. Rejection of the lost cheque in such circumstances was not deliberate, but in fact complainant had mentioned wrong account numbering the memorandum. Moreover, complainant suppressed factum of rejection of the cheque earlier on account of drawer’s signatures mis matching. In these circumstances, we feel that opposite parties-Punjab national Bank were not negligent or deficient in rendering services to the complainant. Resultantly, finding no merit in the complaint, same stand dismissed. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.

Sir,

On Dated 24/10/2009 at 15.29 pm I applied for withdrawn an amount of
Rs.4000/= from my saving account (SBI A/c no. 30218584214) at PNB ATM,
Janakpuri East, New Delhi vide Transcation no.1018.
No amount was withdrawn from ATM Machine, but the same amount has been
debited to my Saving account.

I have complained to both of the banks many times but till date no action
has been taken, a month have been passed away but the amount has not been
credited to my account.

Please take necessary action.

Renu Sharma

Consumer Complaint No: 52/2007

Date of presentation: 01.06.2007

Date of decision: 30/12/2009

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Sh. G.S. Bholla, S/o Sh. Sadhu Singh,

Proprietor of M/s Indian Punjab Satkar Transport Chandigarh, (I.P.S.T.C.) SCF No. 1029, New Motor Market near Masjid Mani Majra Chandigarh U.T.
Versus

M/s Punjab National Bank, Nalagarh,

Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan H.P.

Through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Party.
For the complainant: Mr. Ram Rattan, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party: Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Advocate.

O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, avers that, he is holder of a saving bank account bearing No.1459, with the OP-Bank. He avers that he was having balance of Rs.1,47,950/- in his aforesaid account, in the month of May, 2005, when in order to withdraw some amount, he had signed five cheques bearing No.30601, 30602, 30603, 30604 and 30605, hence, while going from Chandigarh to Nalagarh, misplaced the aforesaid cheques and intimation was given to the OP-Bank, vide letter dated 04.05.2005 regarding stop payment. The complainant further proceeded to aver that, on 31.05.2005, when he visited the OP-Bank, for withdrawing the cash, it was revealed that cheque No.30601, 30602 and 30603 has been encashed despite the fact that intimation to stop the payment of these cheque were duly given to the OP-Bank, hence, the OP-Bank, has caused him loss of Rs.1,47,950/-. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Bank and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OP-Bank, in its written version, to the complaint, submitted that at no point of time, till date the complainant was having a balance of Rs.1,49,950/-, in his account including in the month of May, 2005. The signing of three cheque bearing No.30601, 30602 and 30603, are not denied. It is denied that the letter dated 04.05.2005 with a request to stop the payment was ever received and that their officials wee requested to stop the payment teleph9ncally. It is denied that he has suffered loss of Rs.1,47,950/-. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OP-Bank, in, not stopping the payment of cheque bearing No.30601, 30602 & 30603, notwithstanding, the, fact that, letter dated 04.05.2005, was sent to them, beside, the endorsement of “or bearer’ having been deleted therefrom, hence, causing him, loss to the tune of Rs.1,47,000/- by way of encashment of the aforesaid cheques. However, the OP-Bank, has repudiated the claim of the complainant, inasmuch, as, it had denied the receipt of letter dated 04.05.2005, whereby request, for, stopping the payment of the aforesaid cheques was, made to them, hence, is, exculpating, its, liability.

6. Assuming that, letter dated 04.05.2005, Annexure-F, so sent to the OP-Bank, by the complainant through UPC post, Annexure-G, stopping the payment of the purported cheque, even if not received by it, as averred in the reply, even then, it was incumbent upon the OP-Bank, to have not released the proceeds of the said cheques, to its bearer, for, the reason, that, the word “or bearer” was struck off from the cheque and the striking of the endorsement ‘or bearer’ was not initialed. Therefore, when it, engenders, a, bona suspicion, regarding the, genuineness of the purported striking ‘off’, the, endorsement of ‘or bearer’, for lack of the said scoring ‘off’ not having being initialed by the complainant, the, act of the OP-Bank, in proceeding, to, contrary, to, his command, against releasing payment to the bearer, as also, when, for, reasons aforesaid the purported cheque smacked of suspicion, as such, caused loss to him. Moreover, the purported cheques were of ‘self’ and was not issued in the name of the person, as such, it was also incumbent upon the OP-Bank, to have, also, not delivered, its, proceeds, to, the bearer, when the cheques were comprising huge sums. Therefore, the act of the OP-Bank, in delivering the proceeds of the purported cheques, contrary, to, his, command, tantamounts both, to, a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

7. The result of the above discussion, is, that the complainant filed by the complainant is bonafide and deserves to be allowed. Consequently, we allow this complaint and direct the OP-Bank, to give credit of Rs.1,47,000/-, i.e. the money comprised in the purported cheques, along with interest as, is, permissible under saving bank account with effect from the date of defrayment of the proceeds of the aforesaid cheques, till, actual payment is made. In addition to this, the OP-Bank, is, also burdened with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- payable to the complainant. This order shall be complied with by the OP-Bank, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which it shall also be liable to pay punitive damages of Rs.10,000/-. In the above terms the complaint stands disposed of. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

C.C.No:85/2009

BETWEEN:

Nynala Kotaiah,

S/o Bapaiah,

Cultivation,

R/o Inamanamelluru Village,

Maddipadu Mandal,

Prakasam District.

... Complainant.

Vs.

The Branch Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Addanki Bus Stand,

Ongole. …Opposite party


COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT : SRI D. KRISHNA MOHAN.

ADVOCATE, ONGOLE.


COUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTY : SRI B. RAMALINGAM,

ADVOCATE, ONGOLE.


This complaint is coming on 05.01.2010 for final hearing before us and having stood over this day for consideration this Forum delivered the following:

Per:SRI A. PRABHAKAR GUPTA, MEMBER:

ORDER:



1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party.



2. The case of the complainant is that he obtained an Agricultural Loan against the security of the Gold Ornament from the opposite party bank under loan account no.P.A.58827 for Rs.31,600/- on 07.02.2007. Later the Government of India introduced an Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 to give some benefit to the formers and the implementation of the scheme had been extended up to 28.02.2008. With the rules and regulations of the scheme, the present complainant is entitled for waiver of entire loan account. Basing on the said scheme the complainant submitted a representation to the opposite parties and the opposite party not given any benefit under the scheme to the complainant. The complainant further mentioned stated that on 15.03.2007 he also obtained another similar loan from the Indian Bank, Ongole Branch and the said bank waived the entire amount and issued a certificate to that effect. Subsequently on 23.02.2009 the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party requesting him to close his account. Instead of closing the account, the opposite party made demands on complainant for payment of the due amount without giving any reply notice to his legal notice. Hence, the complaint.



3. In reply to the complaint the opposite party filed his counter stating that as per the terms and conditions of the said scheme the complainant has to borrow the loan amount on or before 31.03.2007 and it should be falls as a over due account as on 31.12.2007 and remain un paid till 29.02.2008. Since the loan of the complainant not attracted the terms and conditions of the scheme as the loan not over due as on date of the scheme i.e., 31.12.2007, they are not given the benefit to the complainant and requested the fora to dismiss the complaint.



4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A3 were marked. Ex.A1 is the legal notice dated 20.03.2009 to the opposite party by the complainant. Ex.A2 is the postal acknowledgment. Ex.A3 is the Xerox copy Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 sanctioned letter.



5. On behalf of the opposite party Ex.B1 to B6 were marked. Ex.B1 is the Debt Relief Scheme 2008, issued to the M.D., Scheduled Commercial Bank by the Manager, Punjab National Bank. Ex.B2 is the Xerox copy of particulars of Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme 2008. Ex.B3 is the letter dated 30.05.2008 to the Sr. Manager, Punjab National Bank by the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank. Ex.B4 is the Limit Proposal-against Bullion & Jewellery issued by the opposite party regarding to the complainant’s loan. Ex.B5 is the attested copy of demand promissory note dated 07.02.2007 executed by the complainant. Ex.B6 is the Application cum Agreement for loan against Security of Gold Ornaments/articles.



6. The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint?



7. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that according to Ex.B1 the interest on loan amount has to be calculated half yearly rests. In default of payment of interest the amount under interest to be added to principle amount and became as a principle amount, for calculation of interest for further period. So, the time of over due has to be calculated as six months and the complainant is entitled for the benefits under the scheme. Further he argued that the another loan obtained by the complainant which is having similar nature from another bank was given the scheme benefits and another bank issued a certificate to that effect. Further argued that the present opposite party bank also a Nationalized Bank. The effect of scheme to be same to each and every bank since the scheme has been introduced by the Government of India and implemented by the Reserve Bank of India. So, he attributed the deficiency in the service of the opposite party and prayed this forum to grant reliefs as mentioned in the complaint.



8. The advocate for opposite party argued that the loan was taken on 07.02.2007 and it is not falls as over due account or NPA account as on 31.12.2007 and in general usage the bank calculated the over due time as one year. Further he argued that even though the sanctioned loan is an agricultural loan, it is a demand loan. Since, the loan is a demand loan, the over due period to be calculated from the date of demand made by the bank. The calculation of interest for half yearly rest is not a criteria to confirm the loan under the category of over due account. As the loan of the complainant not attracted by the scheme they are not given the benefits and there is no deficiency on their part and requested the forum to dismiss the present complaint.



9. On hearing both sides and with the strength of documents available it is an admitted fact that the complainant obtained a Gold loan from the opposite party bank which is having a nature of Agriculture. Further it is also admitted fact that the loan was taken on 07.02.2007 i.e., before 31.03.2007 which is one of the condition of the scheme. There is no dispute with these facts. Now the discussing point is whether the said loan comes under the category of over due account or NPA account are not?



10. On seeing of the Ex.A2, which is issued by another bank in connection with closure and similar natural account implemented the scheme. Ex.A2 is not containing the date of sanction of the loan. The said loan was taken by the complainant on 15.03.2007 is not supported by any authenticated document except mentioning in Ex.A1 i.e., legal notice issued by the complainant. So, we could not take as a precedent for the waiver made by another bank to decide the present case. On seeing the Ex.B2 which is the terms and conditions of the scheme it is clearly mentioned that under clause 4 (1)(a) the loan should be disbursed up to 31 March, 2007 and should be over due on 31st December, 2007 and remained un paid till 29th February, 2008. Those loans are alone eligible for grant of benefit under the scheme. Admittedly the complainant obtained a loan on 07.02.2007 i.e., with in the stipulated period of scheme and also it remained unpaid till 29th February, 2008. So, these two conditions of the schemes were fulfilled. Coming to the another condition i.e., falling of over due amount the opposite party filed Exs.B6 and B5 which are application-Cum- agreement and promissory note. Both the documents are not containing any stipulation of period for re-payment of loan amount and having the nature of demand loan. When, once we confirm the nature as a demand loan the over due of account to be treated after demand only. In the present case no demand was made by the opposite party.


11. Further, the Ex.A6 containing the payment of interest at 9.75% with half yearly rests. This clause is not a ground to confirm the period of payment as six months and in the absence of payment of interest or principle is not a source to confirm the nature as a overdue account or NPA account. So, this forum not accepted the version of complainant and not taken the Ex.A2 as a precedent since the Ex.A2 not containing the date of sanction or date of over due. As the opposite party bank applied the terms and conditions of the scheme in connection with the loan of the complainant, this fora feels that there is no deficiency on their part.

12. In the result, the complaint dismissed with out costs.

Dear sir/Madam

I am Customer of PNB. Acct No 0328000100418450 of PNB Morar Gwalior Madhya Pradesh.
On Date of 13.02.2011 Automatic some amount has been deducted from my saving a/c no.
0328000100418450.
Deduct amount was
1). Rs. 418
2). Rs. 408
3). Rs. 618

After that I complaint in Punjab national bank by mail to
1). Sudeshna Sharma" <ssharma@pnb.co.in>,
2). "BO: Morar Gwalior" <bo0328@pnb.co.in>,
3). "CO: Bhopal" <cobpl@pnb.co.in>,
4). "Rajender Prasad" <rp.sharma@pnb.co.in>,
5). "Rajinder Kumar Sharma" <rk_sharma@pnb.co.in>,
But i did not get any reference from them to till date.

Kindly do the needful


Regards
Ramvir Yadav
Mob No:- +91-9930713825

Respected Sir/Madam,

My name is Mukesh Sachdeva and my father Mr. Varinder Sachdeva wrote a letter to The Regional Manager, PNB Bank, Chandigarh and The Branch Manager,DAV College branch, Jagadhri Gate,PNB Bank,Ambala City on 18th march, 2011 on behalf of my grand mother Smt. Raj Rani Sachdeva. He wrote in that letter about his mother Smt. Raj Rani Sachdeva's pension account.Her PNB account number is 3931000300052154.She had been getting pension Ex -Gratia from Northern Railway of Rs 605 as B.P. + 182 as D.A. before 1/1/2006 and pension of Rs. 4382 from January, 2006 till August, 2010 and Rs. 4200 from September, 2010 till December, 2010. Then PNB froze her account in Jan 2011. PNB recovered the sum of Rs 3,323, Rs1, 18,000 and Rs 71,548 on 08/01/2011, 17/01/2011 and 22/02/2011 respectively. According to PNB, she was paid almost Rs. 3595 per month in excess since January, 2006. It is hard for us to accept the fact that bank made such an enormous mistake month after month for almost five full years. Bank started making payment in the amount of Rs. 4382 from September, 2008 and paid arrears from January, 2006 till August, 2008. In that letter we requested them to provide the letter from Railway pension department which led PNB to pay her Rs. 4382 starting January, 2006 and then revert back to Rs. 787 starting January, 2011.


My grand mother is an elderly widow. She has been saving money for the surgery of her kidney stones. She has multiple health issues and she frequently visits doctors for arthritis of her knees and shoulders. Recently she got sick with pneumonia and she was in hospital for about a week. When we came to withdraw money from bank, we were refused the payment. Moreover, when we tried to cash joint FD in the amount of Rs. 71,548 drawn in favor of my father and my grand mother, we were misguided and told that FD could not be cashed and made us deposit that FD into my grand mother's pension account and after depositing that FD into her account they recovered the whole amount on the same day without even letting us know the balance recovery amount. Moreover, when they recovered the whole amount (and her account was almost nil), the bank manager was not even interested in listening to us and said he is very busy and if we need any help in that matter we can opt for legal option. That FD had nothing to do with my grand mother's account and whether bank had any right to deposit that FD into my grand mother's account. We trusted their bank and they took our money which was saved for the rainy day.

We requested them to send us a proof of her actual pension amount, the above said FD be cashed and my grand mother's account be reinstated with full balance. Even if the bank made an error, does the bank unilaterally hold the right to decide to freeze her account and leave my elderly grand mother with no money she was depending on so heavily?

The PNB did not respond to our letter till now.Then on 5th May, 2011 we decided to get the information from PNB under RTI Act. My Grand mother wrote a letter under RTI Act to Public Information officer, Punjab National Bank, DAV College Branch, Ambala City asking them to provide us


a) the certified copy of F.D.R. amounting to Rs.71, 548 which was transferred in account of Smt.Raj Rani Sachdeva on 22-02-2011 with full particulars since the FDR was initially registerd and any document attached with the same. The said F.D.R. was in the joint name of Raj Rani Sachdeva & Varinder Sachdeva.


b) And on what behalf that FDR was transferred to above said account no.


c) certified copies of letter/circulars issued by Northern Railway (pension Department) or concerned department which led PNB to pay Rs. 4382/- starting January,2006 August, 2010 and Rs. 4200 from

September, 2010 till December, 2010 and then revert back to Rs. 787/-starting January, 2011 i.e. the pension to the applicant, as the P.P.O number of the applicant is NR/89/3355 dated 1.5.1989(Raj Rani Sachdeva widow of Dharam Pal Sachdeva DOB-07-08-1927).


Then on 18-05-2011 we received the reply from PNB. In which they replied that they are not authorized to provide the information under RTI act and we might get the information from their CPI officer.They also returned our application.


My grand mother sent that RTI application on 5th May, 2011 to public information officer to provide information pertaining to her PNB account which was returned by PNB Manager, DAV College Branch, Ambala City stating that they were not authorized to provide information under RTI act whereas we come to know that all the branches have been authorized to receive application under Right to information act, 2005 and forward to the concerned CPIO for final disposal.


Please help us in reinstating my grand mother's Punjab national bank account.On 4th June, 2011, PNB branch manager, D AV College Branch, A/city (Mr. T. R. Khurana) refused to provide us the acknowledgment or refusal of RTI letter which my grandmother wrote to Central Public information officer and he refused to receive that application whereas we come to know that all the branches have been authorized to receive application under Right to information act, 2005 and forward to the concerned CPIO for final disposal. Even he talked very harsh to us in front of two persons. I again request you to please help us how we can get our money back from PNB.My grandmother is very old and sick lady.She can not even walk without walker. She saved that money for rainy days.Now she needs that money for her health reasons which PNB recovered without giving us a notice.


Now, My grand mother has sent that RTI application on 4th June, 2011 to central public information officer, PNB House, sector 17-B, Chandigarh to provide information pertaining to her PNB account and we have not got any response till now.



I also wrote a letter on 18th march, 2011 to CAO Northern Railway on behalf of my grand mother Smt. Raj Rani Sachdeva. In that letter I wrote that She had been getting pension Ex -Gratia Rs 605 as B.P. + 182 as D.A. before 1/1/2006 and in the sum of Rs. 4382 per month from Punjab National Bank, DAV College, Ambala City from January, 2006 till August, 2010. From September, 2010 till December, 2010 PNB reduced her pension amount to Rs. 4200 per month. In January, 2011 PNB froze her account because of excess pension paid. It is hard to accept the fact that bank made such an enormous mistake. We never received any letter from Pension Department about her actual pension amount after Jan 2006.In that letter I requested them to please advise us whether it is to be revised w.e.f. 1/1/2006 and at which rate or what amount to be paid and please write us and PNB about her revised pension amount. As per 6th Pay commission no instruction has been issued to us.

The pension department did not respond to our letter.

I request you to please help me in cashing that FD and reinstating my grand mother's account.Please guide me how can we get back our money from PNB. I shall be thankful to you for this.


Thanking you in advance,


Mukesh Sachdeva (ermukesh009 at gmail dot com)

Email-ermukesh009@gmail.com

Ph- 91-9050539495

Respected Seniors,

Please help us in reinstating my grand mother's PNB account.Please help.............................................. ................................................

Thanks & Regards,

Mukesh Sachdeva

Respected Seniors,

Please help us .............................................. ................................................

Thanks & Regards,

Mukesh Sachdeva

Default

Respected Seniors,

Please help us in reinstating my grand mother's PNB account.Please help.............................................. ................................................

Thanks & Regards,

Mukesh Sachdeva