जिला मंच उपभोक्*ता संरक्षण,धौलपुर (राज0)

उपस्थिति- श्री देवचन्*द मीणा- अध्*यक्ष
श्री यदुनाथ शर्मा - सदस्*य
श्रीमती अलका यादव सदस्*य
प्रकरण क्रमॉक 10/2008

1- सुरेन्*द्र पाल सिंह
2- वीरेन्*द्रपाल सिंह
3- राजेन्*द्रपाल सिंह पिसरान स्*व0 श्री कुन्*दन सिंह अकवाम वघेला साकिनान मुहल्*ला
गडरपुरा धौलपुर
................. परिवादीगण

बनाम

1- प्रबंधक पंजाब नेशनल बैंक शाखा घण्*टाघर रोड नगरपालिका के पास धौलपुर
................. विपक्षीगण

परिवाद अधीन धारा 12उपभोक्*ता संरक्षण अधि0 1986
उपस्थिति अभिभाषक गण
1- पक्षकारान के प्रतिनिधि उपस्थित

आदेश

दिनॉक 19/03/2009
संक्षेप में प्रकरण के तथ्*य इस प्रकार है कि परिवादीगण के पिता स्*व0 श्री कुन्*दनलाल ने बैक में एक लाख रूपये 46 दिन केलिए एफ डी कराये जिसका भुगतान 18-2-94 को मय ब्*याज होना था लेकिन इस बीच उनके पिता का देहान्*त हो गया इसलिए उक्*त राशि को लेने केलिए बैंक में परिवादीगण गए लेकिन बैंक ने उत्*तराधिकार प्रमाण पत्र लाने के लिए कहा जो परिवादीगण ने विपक्षी शाखा में उत्*तराधिकार प्रमाण पत्र बनवाया जाकर पेश कर दिया लेकिन बैंक ने देने सेमना कर दिया अन्*त में परिवादीगण ने अपने हिस्*से की राशि ¼¼ दिलाने एवं हर्जा खर्चा दिलाने की मांग की ।
विपक्षी ने जवाव पेश कर जाहिर किया है कि परिवादीगण अपने हिस्*सेकी राशि को लेने के लिए बैंक गए लेकिन उत्*तराधिकार केमुताबिक चारों पुत्रों को ¼¼ राशि देने के लिए कहा गया है । बैंक में चारों पुत्र एक साथ लेने नहीं पहुचे और इनके भाई महेन्*द्रसिंह ने प्रार्थना पत्र पेश कर अलग अलग राशि लेने से मना किया इसलिए बैंक ने उक्*त परिवादीगण को राशि नहीं दी ।
दोनों पक्षों की बहस सुनी गई ।पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया । हमारी विनम्र राय में मत है कि परिवादीगण ने यदि सभी औपचारिकताऐं पूर्ण करदी हैं तो उनकी राशि उनको मिलना वाजिव है । अत: परिवादीगण का परिवाद स्*वीकार किया जाकर विपक्षी को आदेश दिया जाता है कि परिवादीगण को उनके हिस्*से की राशि ¼¼ का भुगतान कर दिया जावे । पक्षकार अपना अपना खर्चा स्*वयं बहन करेंगे ।


(देवचन्*द मीणा)
अध्*यक्ष
जिला मंच उपभोक्*ता संरक्षण
धौलपुर
आदेश आज दिनॉक 19/03/09 को लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया ।



(यदुनाथ शर्मा ) (अलका यादव) (देवचन्*द मीणा)
सदस्*य सदस्*य अध्*यक्ष
जिला मंच उपभोक्*ता जिला मंच उपभोक्*ता जिला मंच उपभोक्*ता
संरक्षण धौलपुर संरक्षण,धौलपुर संरक्षण, धौलपुर

COMPLAINANT Sri.N.Shripathi,Aged 58 years,S/o Late Ramakrishna Bhat,C-250, Peenya Industrial Estate,Bangalore – 560058Advocate – Sri.N.Sukumar Jain

V/s.

OPPOSITE PARTY Punjab National Bank,No.15, 1st Cross, 1st Stage,Peenya Industrial Estate,Bangalore – 560 058.Rep. by itsChief ManagerAdvocate – Sri.H.C.Shivakumar


O R D E R


This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service.

The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant issued a cheque for Rs.3,000/- on 05.08.2008 in favour of Bowring Institute, Bangalore. When the said cheque was presented it was dishonored with an endorsement of ‘Insufficient Funds’. As on the date of issuance of cheque and subsequently there to complainant had sufficient amount at his current account at OP, but still the said cheque was not cleared. It is all because of the carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP. Due to the bouncing of the said cheque complainant is put to greater hardship, prejudice and mental agony that too for no fault of his. He immediately contacted the OP to rectify the mistake but it went in vain. He caused legal notice on 11.09.2008 to OP again there was no response. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.


2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the cheque is issued in the account of M/s.Metal Chem carrying on business at Peenya Industrial Estate. So the transaction is of commercial in nature. It is further contended that the Department of Commercial Tax freezed an amount of Rs.30,000/- in the account. So the balance available as on the date of presentation of the said cheque was only Rs.728-59. Hence the said cheque was returned and dishonored with an endorsement of ‘insufficient funds’. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP has not received any communication of withdrawal of the said restriction by CTO nor complainant brought the said fact to the notice of the OP with regard to the lift of the said lien by the Commercial Tax Department. The other allegations made in the complaint are baseless. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.


3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.


4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order?


5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order.

R E A S O N S


6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has got the current account at OP and issued one cheque in favour of Bowring Institute, Bangalore on 05.08.2008 for Rs.3,000/-. It is contended by the complainant that though he had sufficient amount at his current account, OP dishonored the said cheque on the ground of ‘insufficient funds’. Due to the dishonor of the said cheque complainant suffered both mental agony and financial loss and loss of reputation in the society and the community. It is all because of negligence on the part of the OP. When his repeated requests and demands made to OP to rectify the said mistake went in futile he even got issued legal notice on 11.09.2008. Copy of the legal notice is produced. Again there was no response.



7. As against this it is contended by the OP that the present transaction is a commercial transaction. We don’t find force in the said defence. It is further contended by the OP that there was a lien created by Department of Commercial Tax to the tune of Rs.30,000/- with respect to the said account of the complainant and after deduction of the said lien balance available was only Rs.728-59. Hence the said cheque was dishonored with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.


8. We have gone through the documents produced by the complainant. Of course it is not at dispute that the said lien is created on 05.06.2008 for a total sum of Rs.28,863/-. The Commercial Tax Department addressed the letter to the OP on 27.06.2008 withdrawing the said lien. It is received by the OP. Under such circumstances OP can’t take the defence that the withdrawal of the said lien was not brought to their notice either by complainant or by the Commercial Tax Department. This kind of the defence set out by the OP itself amounts to deficiency in service.

9. We have also gone through the Bank statement and this disputed cheque issued on 05.08.2008 and the lien is withdrawn on 27.06.2008 itself. On 05.08.2008 at the complainants account a lump sum amount is at balance so as to honor cheque for Rs.3,000/-. So the contention of the OP that cheque was dishonored because of insufficient funds on the face of it appears to be baseless.


10. The evidence of the complainant which finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake just to shirk the responsibility and obligation. There is a proof of carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP. The arbitrary act of the OP in dishonoring the said cheque though sufficient amount is available at the account of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service.


11. Of course complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, there is no basis for the said huge claim. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- with a litigation cost of Rs.500/-. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following:


O R D E R


The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied with in four weeks from the date of its communication.

Sh. Badri Ram son of Sh. Dass Ram, resident of village Balh PO Dal Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra (HP)
Complainant
Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Piner Hotel Palampur, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra (HP) through its Branch Manager

2. The Punjab national bank Branch TCV (Dal) Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra (HP) through its Branch Manager


ORDER
A.S.JASWAL, PRESIDENT. (ORAL)

In nut-shell the case of the complainant is that he had purchased two mules (hereinafter referred to as animal) by taking loan from the opposite party No.2 and that both the animals were insured with opposite party No.1 for the period 27.6.2006 to 26.6.2007. It is asserted that one mule bearing tag No.0710, during the insurance Policy, had died and the complainant after completing necessary formalities submitted his claim before the Insurance Company, but it has repudiated his claim in illegal manner and thereby committed deficiency in service.

2. The claim of the complainant has been resisted and contested by the opposite party by asserting that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. The opposite party no.1 has denied its liability on the ground that the colour of the deceased animal was found different from the insured animal as such, the claim of the complainant was not found to be genuine one and the same was legally rejected.


3. The opposite party No.2 also filed its reply pleading therein that the answering opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service as the claim forms of the complainant were submitted to the opposite party No.1 at the earliest possible. The other averments have been denied in toto.


4. Both the parties adduced evidence by way of affidavits and annexures in support of their contentions. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the following points arise for determination:-
1. Whether the OPs committed deficiency in service, as alleged?
2. Final order

5. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing points for determination, our findings on the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point no.1: Partly in affirmative
Point No.2 No
Relief The complaint is partly allowed as per operative part of the order

REASONS FOR FINDINGS
POINT NO.1

6. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the Insurance Company has committed deficiency in service. He has further argued that the complainant has given the copy of death certificate of the cow issued by the Veterinary Doctor and other documents, but the Insurance Company without application of mind rejected his genuine claim


7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the colour of the dead animal did not tally with the colour of the insured animal as the animal insured was black in colour and the animal that died was of brown colour and that the Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2


7. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the entire record available on the file was gone into in detail. From the record, it stands proved that the animal of the complainant bearing Ear Tag No.0710 was insured by the opposite party No.1 and during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy; that animal had died. There is no dispute regarding these facts and these facts are admitted facts of the present case.


8. The only defence of the opposite party No.1 is that the colour of the dead animal does not tally with the insured animal. The opposite party No.1 has placed on record photo copy of post mortem report issued by the Veterinary Doctor Annexure OP1-6. In his post mortem report, he has mentioned that animal bearing Tag No.0710 having blackish brown colour had died. We are of the view that since the opposite party is providing public utility services, it cannot deny the genuine claim of the complainant on technical grounds. We are of the view that the opposite party No.1 without applying its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case had wrongly repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant and this is nothing but great deficiency in service.


9. There is no evidence on record adduced by the complainant to prove that the opposite party No.2 has committed any deficiency in service.


10. Now, how this deficiency can be cured? We are of the view that the ends of justice will be met in case the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the insured amount to the complaint within 30 days after the receipt of copy of this order. Hence, point no.1 is answered partly in affirmative.

8. No other point argued or urged
Relief


9. In view of our findings on point no.1 above, the complaint is partly allowed against opposite party No.1 and the same is dismissed against opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the insured amount to the complainant within 30 days after the receipt of copy of this order failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization. The opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs.2000/-.

Billo Devi wife of late Sh. Madho Ram, resident of village and PO Dobh, Tehsil Shahpur District Kangra (HP)
Complainant
Versus

1. The Punjab National Bank Shahpur through its branch Manager, District Kangra (HP)

2. The New India Insurance company, branch Office Dharamshala through its Branch Manager Dharamshala, District Kangra (HP)


In nut-shell the case of the complainant is that he had purchased a buffalo by raising loan to the tune of Rs.10800/- from opposite party No.1 and that the same was got insured with the opposite party No.2. It is asserted that the said buffalo had died during the subsistence of the insurance Policy on dated 4.12.2005 and that after completing necessary formalities, she had submitted her claim before the opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1, but it did not settle the same. Thus, the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.

2. The claim of the complainant has been resisted and contested by opposite party No.1 on the plea that on having received the information regarding the death of the buffalo of complainant, it had immediately informed the opposite party No.2.


3. The opposite party No.2 vide its separate reply has asserted that there is no deficiency, in service, on its part as the complainant has failed to supply the ear tag of the buffalo despite various reminders written to her. Since, the complainant had not supplied the ear tag, it cannot be said the insured buffalo had died. Since, the complainant has failed to supply the ear tag of the buffalo; the opposite party has rightly filed the claim of the complainant as “No Tag No Claim.


4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully and minutely. This Forum on 20.2.2008 framed the following points for determination:-
1. Whether the O.Ps committed deficiency in service as alleged? OPC
2. Whether the complaint is not maintainable, as alleged? OPOPs
2. Final order



5. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while discussing points for determination, our findings on the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1: No
Point no.2: Decided accordingly
Final order: The complaint is dismissed as per operative part of the order
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
POINT No.1



6. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the opposite party No.2 has illegally filed the claim of the complainant as No Tag no Claim and thus, committed deficiency in service.


7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has argued that the complainant has not produced any cogent and convincing evidence to prove her case and that the opposite party No.2 has rightly filed her claim as No Tag No Claim after due application of mind. Learned counsel for the complainant No.1 has also argued that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of opposite party No.1.


8. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the entire record, available on the file, was gone into in detail. The complainant has filed her affidavit, Ex.CW1, in which she has re-counted the averments as made in the complaint.


9. The case of the complainant is that her buffalo which was insured with opposite party No.2 had died on 4.12.2005, whereas the defence of the opposite party No.2 is that the complainant has failed to supply the ear tag of the buffalo despite various reminders written to her. No doubt, a buffalo of the complainant had died, but without any identification, it cannot be said that the insured buffalo of the complainant had died. The complainant has not placed on record any cogent and convincing evidence to prove her case except the photographs of the buffalo. On the contrary, the opposite party has filed affidavit of Shri Ravinder Negi, Divisional Manager, Ex.OPW1. In his affidavit, he has specifically deposed on oath, that one buffalo of the complainant had been insured with the opposite party No.2, whose tag number was 1483, but the complainant has not supplied the tag number of the buffalo which died nor it was mentioned in the livestock claim form. Thus, the opposite party No.2 is not aware whether the insured buffalo had died or some other buffalo. The evidence adduced by the opposite party No.2, remains un-rebutted on record. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the complainant has failed to connect the dead buffalo with the insured one. In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence, we are unable to hold that the insured buffalo had died. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the opposite party No.2 has rightly filed the claim of the complainant as No Tag No Claim after due application of mind. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, point No.1 is answered in negative.



10. No other point argued or urged before us.


Relief


11. In view of our findings on point No1 above, the complaint is dismissed.

Shri Devinder Kishore Bansal S/O Shri Jai Kishore, R/O Chhota Chowk, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P.

Versus

The Punjab National Bank, Nahan,

District Sirmour, H.P.

Through its Manager.


Pritam Singh (District Judge) President:- This order shall dispose of complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant in brief is that he was holder of joint FDR bearing No.3101-1466050 with his brother Shri Upinder Kumar Bansal. That the FDR in question was to mature on 12.07.2005 and on its maturity, a sum of Rs.62,655/- was payable to the complainant. But, after its maturity, they could not receive the amount of maturity on 12.07.2005 and as such the FDR remained with the OP-Bank w.e.f. 12.07.2005 to 26.07.2006 and the OP-Bank did not pay interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs.62,655/- from 12.07.2005 to 26.07.2006. It is alleged that the OP-Bank by not giving interest on the aforesaid sum, not only indulged in an unfair trade practice, but also committed deficiency in service. Hence, feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the act of the OP-Bank, the complainant perforce filed this complaint against the OP-Bank.

2. The complaint is resisted by OP-Bank who took preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint. On merits, OP-Bank refuted the allegations of the complainant alleging that the maturity amount of Rs.62,665/- was paid to the depositor on 26.07.2006. The OP also stated that neither there is any provision nor any contract between the parties that after the maturity of the FDR, the bank is liable to pay interest for the period beyond the maturity date. Hence, there being no deficiency in service, the complaint is sought to be dismissed. Thereafter, the parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their claim/counter claim.

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

4. The case of the complainant is that despite his eligibility the OP-Bank did not give interest on the matured amount of FDR beyond the maturity date, i.e. from 12.07.2005 to 26.07.2006. Whereas, the case of the OP-Bank is that there was no contract between the parties after maturity period of FDR and as such the OP-Bank is not liable to pay interest for the period beyond the maturity date.

5. But, it may be stated that the OP-Bank has not placed on record any material or documentary proof in support of their plea that the OP-Bank is not liable to pay interest on the FDR amount after the maturity date. Admittedly, the maturity amount of FDR amounting to Rs. 62,665/- was paid to the depositor on 26.07.2006 say after more than one year from maturity date thereby the maturity amount of FDR remained with the OP-Bank from 12.07.2005 to 25.07.2006 and normally FDR after maturity date are automatically extended for another period of one year unless specifically asked by FDR holder to extend FDR period for specific date. Hence, the OP-Bank is legally bound and liable to pay interest on the maturity amount of Rs.62,665/- for the period from 12.07.2005 to 25.07.2006 at the rate as permissible on FDR .

6. Resultantly, we allow this complaint and direct the OP-Bank to pay interest for disputed period on the maturity amount of FDR of Rs.62, 665/- as was given by them on FDR earlier. The litigation cost is quantified at Rs.1,000/- payable by the OP-Bank 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 copy of this order.

Sri.B.N.Sheshagiri Rao,

S/o Late Narayana Rao,

Hindu, Aged about 52 years,

Residing at D.No.1-175,

Sharada Nilaya, Hosabettu,

Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate: Sri D.Ishwara Bhat)

VERSUS

1. The Punjab National Bank,

K.S. Rao Road,

Mangalore,

Represented by its Manager.

2. The Deputy Commissioner,

Dakshina Kannada,

Mangalore. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES


The Complainant owned the vehicle of Maruthi Omni bearing Registration No.KA 19 M 2898. The said vehicle was seized by the Station House Officer of Panambur Police Station and booked the case and referred the matter to the 2nd Opposite Party i.e., Deputy Commissioner, D.K., Mangalore. In pursuance of that, the 2nd Opposite Party has initiated the proceedings and in the said proceedings the 2nd Opposite Party passed an order to release the vehicle with condition of furnishing bank guarantee/Indemnity Bond for Rs.40,000/-. Accordingly, the Complainant approached the 1st Opposite Party and on 2.9.2002 Indemnity Bond for Rs.40,000/- was executed and which was valid up to 1.9.2003.

It is alleged that, the 1st Opposite Party after the expiry of the period of the Indemnity Bond, instead of renewing the same without consent of the Complainant Rs.40,000/- paid to the 2nd Opposite Party from the account of the Complainant. It is contended that the aforesaid act of the 1st Opposite Party is illegal and unauthorized as according to the Complainant and filed the above complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.40,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 20.12.2004 till the date of payment and further Rs.10,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.



2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Party No.1 appeared in person and 2nd Opposite Party also appeared in person filed separate version.

Opposite Party No.1 submits that as a banker has performed its duties as provided and acted prudently with the terms and conditions of Guarantee/Bond executed by this Opposite Party. Hence there is no question of deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The Opposite Party No.2 submitted that, the Complainant while releasing the vehicle in case No.COM.CR.9/01-02 executed a Guarantee/Indemnity Bond for Rs.40,000/. The Complainant executed Guarantee of Opposite Party No.1 under Guarantee No.10/2002 for Rs.40,000/-. The said Guarantee Bond suppose to be renewed every year. Since the Complainant failed to renew the bond, the Opposite Party No.2 seized the bank guarantee. It is submitted that, the above case is disposed off on 20th June 2005 thereafter the Complainant received the above said amount from this Opposite Party and contended that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

(i) Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?

(ii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

(iii) What order?

4. In support of the complaint, Sri.B.N.Sheshagiri Rao (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Complainant produced four documents as listed in the annexure. One Sri.T.K.Sadashivan (RW1), Branch Manager of the 1st Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. The Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 filed notes of arguments.

We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and we have also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows: Point No.(i): Negative.

Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per final order.


REASONS

5. POINTS NO. (i) to (iii):

In the present case it is undisputed fact that, the Complainant is the owner of the vehicle of Maruthi Omni bearing Registration No. KA 19 M 2898. The said vehicle was seized by the Station House Officer of Panambur Police and booked the case and referred the matter to the 2nd Opposite Party i.e., District Commissioner, Mangalore. In pursuance of that, the 2nd Opposite Party has initiated the proceeding as No.COM:CR/9/2001-02. In the said proceedings the 2nd Opposite Party passed an order to release the vehicle with condition of furnishing Indemnity Bond for Rs.40,000/-. On 2.9.2002 the Complainant executed a Indemnity Bond/bank guarantee for Rs.40,000/- and the said bond was valid up to 1.9.2003.

It is contended by the Complainant that, after the expiry of the period of said Indemnity Bond, instead of renewing the same, without consent or permission from the Complainant the 1st Opposite Party has paid cash amount of Rs.40,000/- to the 2nd Opposite Party from the S.B. Account of the Complainant which amounts to deficiency.

From the above admitted facts it is proved that the vehicle of the Complainant was involved in one of the crime cases and the same was seized by the Panambur police station and referred the matter to the 2nd Opposite Party and the 2nd Opposite Party has initiated the proceedings against the Complainant and other accused persons. During the pendancy of the above case, the Complainant filed an application before the District Commissioner for release of the vehicle. The 2nd Opposite Party released the vehicle with condition of furnishing Indemnity Bond for Rs.40,000/-. On 2.9.2002 undisputedly the Complainant executed bank guarantee through 1st Opposite Party for Rs.40,000/-.

The said Indemnity Bond is valid upto 1.9.2003. It could be seen that, the Opposite Party herein is a banker has performed its duties as provided and acted prudently complying with the terms and conditions of guarantee/Indemnity Bond executed by them. The Complainant admittedly not renewed the guarantee bond issued in the above case. Since the Complainant was not renewed the Indemnity Bond for Rs.40,000/- as per the instructions of the 2nd Opposite Party the 1st Opposite Party paid the amount by pay order dated 20.12.2004 to the 2nd Opposite Party which is valid and not illegal and there is no deficiency on the part of the 1st Opposite Party.

The Complainant instead of approaching this Hon’ble Forum ought to have filed an application before the 2nd Opposite Party after closure of the above case to receive the amount. It is further noted that the 2nd Opposite Party appeared before the Fora filed version and stated that Rs.40,000/- has been received by the Complainant. The same is not disputed by the Complainant. In view of the above, the question of paying Rs.40,000/- by the 1st Opposite Party does not arise.

In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that there was no deficiency whatsoever on behalf of the Opposite Parties. Hence the complaint is dismissed.

Jagan Nath (aged 61 years) son of Sh. Piare Lal, Ward No.5, house No.132, Samrala, Ludhiana.

(Complainant)

Vs.



Punjab National bank, Branch Samrala, LIC Building Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana through Manager.

(Opposite party)


O R D E R


1. Complainant after retirement started obtaining his pension from the opposite party through his saving bank passbook no.3466000100286954 qua his PPO no.5089. His grouse in this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is that had been withdrawing his pension from his that account regularly till September,2007. But thereafter opposite party refused to release his pension since October 2007 and did not credit intentionally monthly pension of Rs.1900/- to his account. Though they were under obligation to credit every month pension amount to his account. He being senior citizen was totally dependant upon his pension. Due to mal practice of the opposite party, served a legal notice dated 13.4.2007 on them. Because, they falsely alleged releasing illegal payment of Rs.26,931/- as pension arrears to him. Opposite party also wrongly charged Rs.100+35=35+35=Rs.205/- on 7.11.2007 and debited the same to his account. For such deficiency in service by opposite party, claimed compensation of Rs. 40,000/- for harassment with direction to opposite party to release his pension from 10/2007 onward without any break.

2. Opposite party contested claim of the complainant by claiming his averments to be false and incorrect. However, having saving account with them and receipt of pension of Rs.1900/- per month in that account are admitted. But they claimed that complainant concealed material facts. Because, he had taken loan of Rs.26,000/- from them as per prevalent loan scheme for the pensioners. The loan was sanctioned subject to condition that the amount of pension would be payable only after adjusting withdrawal benefit amount already paid. Pension account of the complainant was maintained as per banking laws. There was no deficiency in service on their part. Complainant operated his account upto 4.10.2007. On 7.4.2007 applied for personal loan, agreed to repay the same in 35 equal monthly instalments and authorised bank to recover monthly instalments from his pension commencing from May,2007. The pension arrears were payable after adjusting withdrawal benefit amount already paid. The pension of the complainant was regularly credited to his account upto date. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

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

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

5. After going through the material placed on the record, the position which emerges is that the complainant is getting pension of Rs.1900/- per month and that pension was credited regularly by opposite party to his saving bank account, copy of which is Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.3. But on 22.8.2006 a sum of Rs.26,931/- as pension arrears was credited to his account. Out of it, complainant withdrew Rs.20,000/- on 22.8.2006, Rs.3000/- on 23.8.2006, Rs.1800/- on 25.8.2006 and Rs.1500/- on 29.8.2006. In the mean time, pension of Rs.1901/- on 23.8.2006 was also credited to his account. He as such on 29.8.2006 was having credit of Rs. 3538/-. But by mistake or error, opposite party again on 30.8.2006 credited a sum of Rs.26,931/- to account of the complainant showing a sum of Rs. 30,469/- in his account. Second credit of pension arrears amounting to Rs.26,931/- on 30.8.2006 by opposite party was just an error on their part. Because, this amount of pension arrears was already credited to his account on 22.8.2006.


Out of that amount, he withdrew substantial amount from his account. As error was committed by crediting again on 30.8.2006 pension arrears of Rs.26,931/- to his account, opposite party entered into a loan agreement on application Ex.R.1 of the complainant. Complainant then vide letter Ex.R.4 dated 7.4.2007 agreed to repay the advanced amount of Rs.26,000/- in 24 equal monthly instalments. He vide letter of authority Ex.R.5 empowered opposite party to recover loan in monthly instalments commencing from May,2007 from his saving bank account, to which his pension was credited. Regarding such consent clause, complainant also executed documents Ex.R.6 and R8 with the opposite party. Under these documents, complainant had authorised opposite party to realize instalments of loan of Rs.26,000./- from his saving bank account, to which his pension was also credited.

6. Probably, this arrangement was done by the opposite party as they inadvertently on two occasions had credited pension arrears of Rs.26,931/- to his account. To get the matter cleared, loan of Rs.26,000/- was shown made available to the complainant who consequently authorised opposite party to deduct loan instalments from his saving bank account. It was for such a reason that the complainant alleges that since Oct.2007, was not paid pension. Though statement of account Ex.R.11 shows that a sum of Rs.1901/- being amount of his pension has been regularly credited to his account by the opposite party from May,2006 till April 2008.

7. In these circumstances, on behalf of opposite party complainant was accused suppressing intimation about taking loan and authorizing OP bank to realize the loan instalments from his account. Whereas on behalf of the complainant argued that they received debt amount by stopping the payment of his pension, for which opposite party would be guilty of not rendering proper services to its consumer.

8. In the instant case, on account of bonafide mistake that pension arrears were credited twice to the account of the complainant and that credit wrongly given to the complainant remained as such. But complainant entered into an agreement showing taking loan of Rs.26,000/- from the opposite party and empowered them to realize that amount from his saving account, to which his pension was credited. This was mutual agreement between the parties.

9. So, in the light of these aspects, we are of the view that opposite party in these circumstances can not be faulted of resorting to mal practice or not rendering proper services to its own consumers. Therefore, finding no merit in the complaint, same is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.

B. Kuthbudeen S/o. Batcha Rowther

Site No. 7, Sri Ganesh Nagar,

Echanari, Coimbatore. --- Complainant

Vs.

Punjab National Bank,

Oppanakara Street Branch,

Oppanakara Street,Coimbatore. --- Opposite Party




ORDER



This complaint is filed by the Complainant praying this Forum directing the opposite party to return the original sale deed registered as Document No. 3916/95 to the complainant, and to pay compensation.

1. Both side present. Joined memo filed by both parties. The extract of join memo is given below:

Both the parties respectfully submit the following. The original sale deed dated 13.11.1995 document No. 3916 of 1995 said to have been deposited by the complainant with erstwhile Nedungadi Bank Limited which is amalgamated with opposite party, as a security for the loan availed by the complainant is not found traceable inspite of all out efforts made by the opposite party. The said original sale deed document No. 3916 of 1995 is therefore irretrievably lost. The opposite party undertakes to give paper publication about the loss of the said original document in one issue of Malai Malar. The complainant received the registration copy of the sale deed dated 13.11.1995 document No. 3916 of 1995 from the opposite party today. From the facts and circumstances of the case of the complainant therefore not pressing the above complaint and the same may please be dismissed as settled out of court.

National Bank

ORDER



Both sides present. Joined memo filed. As per memo the complainant has received the registration copy of the sale deed dated 13.11.1995 Document No. 3916/1995 (C.A. No. 6767/2008) from the opposite party. Matter settled. Memo recorded. Complainant is permitted to use this registration copy of sale deed in the place of original one. With this observation this complaint is dismissed as settled out of Court. No Costs.

Shri Jai Prakash S/o Late Baldev,

Resident of Village Syawan, PO Kunihar,

Tehsil Arki, Distt. Solan (H.P.)



… Complainant

Versus



Punjab National Bank,

Kunihar, Tehsil Arki, Distt. Solan (H.P.)

through its Branch Manager, The Mall, Solan (H.P.) …Opposite Party.








O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainants, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, avers that the OP-Bank, had, sanctioned a loan of Rs.80,000/-, on, 19.02.2001, in favour of the complainant and his father. Thereafter, the complainant started regularly depositing the loan instalments with the OP-Bank, but due to some unavoidable circumstances, he could not pay the instalments, regularly, however, in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties, he deposited a sum of Rs.70,000/- with the OP-Bank in one time settlement, hence, the OP-Bank, was under legal obligation to issue NOC, which they failed to do so. 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, raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, inasmuch, as, lack of deficiency in service and cause of action. On merits, the OP-Bank contended that since the complainant had not deposited the loan amount regularly, hence, the complainant was requested to deposit the loan amount to regularize the account, but he failed to do so, hence, an amount of Rs.70,000/- which was lying in the saving account of the complainant was debited to his loan account and notice to this effect was also given to him, on, 22.04.2006. They further contend that in case the complainant deposits the due amount, they are ready and willing to issue N.O.C. in favour of the complainant. 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 and his father, admittedly, were sanctioned, a term loan of Rs.80,000/-, on, 19.02.2001, by, the OP-Bank. The later failed to repay the loan advanced by the OP-Bank to them, hence, the OP-Bank proceeded to recover the loan amount, from, the saving bank account of the complainant. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the said act of the OP-Bank in proceeding to debit, a sum of Rs.70,000/- comprised in the saving bank account of the complainant with the OP-Bank, for, setting off, the, amount of loan as advanced to the principal borrowers, who, had failed to fulfill their obligation.

6. The OP-Bank, has defended, its, aforesaid act on the strength of a general lien, the bank has, on, securities, which, also, comprised the saving bank account, of, the complainant with the OP-Bank, whose, sum was debited by the OP-Bank, purportedly in, exercise of its power of general lien, so as, to, ensure defrayment by the principal borrower of the loan amount advanced by the OP-Bank.

7. Nonetheless, it is, also, necessary, to, bear in mind the terms and conditions, which were obliged to be carried out by the complainant under the loan agreement entered into interse the contesting parties whose terms had, to, necessarily vest an express authorization in the OP-Bank, to do so, so as to vindicate their act, as, only in the eventuality of an express recital in the loan agreement arrived, at, between the complainant and the OP-Bank and its empowering the OP-Bank, to, proceed against the security, of, the guarantee lying with it, for setting, off, the loan obligation of the principal borrower when the later has defaulted, that, the, general lien, as has been exercised, could be exercised on the part of the OP-bank.


However, a perusal of the agreement of guarantee entered interse the complainant and the OP-Bank, Annexure R-5, does not detail, the, fact of such an express clause empowering the OP-Bank to proceed against the value of the saving account, as, opened by the complainant with it so as to set off the outstanding loan obligation of the principal borrower. Hence, we are, constrained not to vindicate the act of the OP-Bank, in, proceeding to, in the garb of its power of general lien extending to securities, to, set, it, off against the value of the savings bank account. In coming to the above conclusion, we draw support from a decision rendered by the Hon’ble HP State Consumer commission, in case Smt. Kuldep Kaur Gulati and others versus Allahabad Bank, in Original Complaint No.2 of 2005, decided on March 8, 2006.

8. Resultantly, we allow the complaint and direct the OP-Bank as follows:-

i) That the OP-Bank, shall, credit the amount of Rs.70,000/-, in his saving bank account;



ii) That the OP-Bank, while crediting the aforesaid amount of Rs.70,000/-, in the saving bank account of the complainant, shall also provide interest on the said amount, as is prevalent, in the saving bank account, from the date when the said amount, was debited by the OP-Bank, from his saving bank account;



iii) That the OP-Bank, shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant, for rendering deficient service;



iv) That the OP-Bank, is at liberty to take appropriate steps against the complainant, for recovery of the outstanding amount, qua the loan afforded to him, by the OP-Bank;



v) That the OP-Bank, is also burdened with litigation cost, quantified at Rs.1,000/-;



vi) That the OP-Bank, shall, shall comply with this order, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order;



9. That the complaint shall stands disposed of, in the above terms. 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.

Anil Industries, Chapar Road, village & P.O. Chappar, District Ludhiana, through its Proprietor-Anil Kumar.



…..Complainant.

Versus



1- Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its Zonal Manager.

2- Punjab National Bank, Head Office Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi through its General Manager.

3- Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, Ahmedgarh through its Branch Manager.

…..Opposite parties.







O R D E R





1- Complainant when failed despite doing B.Sc., to get a job, intended to set up a small manufacturing unit in village. Consequently, applied for loan and subsidy for manufacturing of agriculture implements, by approaching Khadi and village Industries Commission, Chandigarh, who recommended his application, for financial assistance. Complainant got his unit registered. Loan application forwarded by Khadi Commission, to Punjab National Bank, Ahmedgarh (opposite party no.3), being noddle branch. Opposite party no.3-bank financed term loan of Rs.13,15,000/- in installments from 27.11.2003 onwards, @ 10.5% P.A. fixed, on reduced basis.


He was clearly told that the rate of interest will not be increased during the tenure of the loan. Complainant utilized the loan for the purpose for which, it was sanctioned. But subsequently, opposite party unilaterally and without intimation, increased agreed rate of interest from 10.5% p.a. to 11.75% p.a., w.e.f. 1.4.2005. Complainant protested the same and was assured, to reduce the same. But they failed to comply with the assurance and continued to charge higher rate of interest. Subsequently, on 19.8.2006, opposite party unilaterally and arbitrarily enhanced interest from 11.75% p.a. to 12.25% p.a., without his consent and intimation.


He again protested enhancement of the interest. But they further increased interest from 12.25% p.a. to 13% p.a. from 28.8.2006 to 14.5.2007. Such unilateral enhancement of the interest was wrong, arbitrary, amounting to deficiency in service. Consequently, this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, directing opposite party to charge settled and agreed rate of interest 10.5% p.a. and excess so realized from him, be refunded with interest and be paid compensation of Rs.1 lac for causing harassment.

2- Oppoiste party in reply, pleaded that the interest has been charged as per agreement between the parties. Complaint is barred and not maintainable and complainant has suppressed material facts. Rather, complainant applied for term loan facility and executed relevant documents, as well as cash credit hypothecation on 27.11.2003. Complainant agreed to pay minimum interest @ 11.50% p.a., with monthly rests, subject to change in interest, as per RBI rules and circulars. The term loan of Rs.13.50 lacs and cash credit facility was availed by the complainant. He further agreed to pay penal interest of 2% p.a. in default of payment and breach of terms and conditions of the executed agreement.


Complainant committed default in payment, so proceedings under securitization have been initiated against him. Present complaint is counterblast to those proceedings. Even complainant filed a civil suit, which is pending and also got one civil suit filed through one Vijay Kumar, which was dismissed on 28.1.2008 and thereafter, filed another civil suit against the bank, which is pending. In that civil suit, Vijay Kumar claimed himself to be tenant of the complainant. If that is the position, then complainant could not have transferred the possession and business hypothecated with the bank. So, violated terms of the agreement. Rest of the allegations are also denied.

3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4- Main question to be determined is whether while availing loan, complainant had agreed to pay fixed rate of interest or interest agreed was floating. Consequently, the matter for adjudication owes its existence to loan agreement, executed between the parties. Ex.R2 is the copy of term loan agreement. Vide this agreement, it is apparent that complainant had agreed to repay the term loan of Rs.13,50,000/- with interest @ 0.50% over the Reserve Bank, with a minimum of 11.5% p.a., with monthly rests. So, it means agreed rate of interest was fluctuating and not fixed one. The minimum rate of interest was also 11.50% and not 10.5%, as alleged by the complainant, in his complaint. Similarly, in agreement of hypothecation Ex.R3, rate of interest is also mentioned to be floating and not fixed.

5- When complainant has agreed, to pay fluctuating rate of interest and there is no proof that as per agreement, was to pay fixed rate of interest, therefore, finding no merit in the complaint, the same is dismissed. Because there is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. No order as to costs. Copy of order be provided to the parties free of charge. File be completed and consigned to record room.

Shri Jai Prakash S/o Late Baldev,

Resident of Village Syawan, PO Kunihar,

Tehsil Arki, Distt. Solan (H.P.)



… Complainant

Versus



Punjab National Bank,

Kunihar, Tehsil Arki, Distt. Solan (H.P.)

through its Branch Manager, The Mall, Solan (H.P.) …Opposite Party.









O R D E R:



The instant complaint has been filed by the complainants, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, avers that the OP-Bank, had, sanctioned a loan of Rs.80,000/-, on, 19.02.2001, in favour of the complainant and his father. Thereafter, the complainant started regularly depositing the loan instalments with the OP-Bank, but due to some unavoidable circumstances, he could not pay the instalments, regularly, however, in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties, he deposited a sum of Rs.70,000/- with the OP-Bank in one time settlement, hence, the OP-Bank, was under legal obligation to issue NOC, which they failed to do so. 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, raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, inasmuch, as, lack of deficiency in service and cause of action. On merits, the OP-Bank contended that since the complainant had not deposited the loan amount regularly, hence, the complainant was requested to deposit the loan amount to regularize the account, but he failed to do so, hence, an amount of Rs.70,000/- which was lying in the saving account of the complainant was debited to his loan account and notice to this effect was also given to him, on, 22.04.2006. They further contend that in case the complainant deposits the due amount, they are ready and willing to issue N.O.C. in favour of the complainant. 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 and his father, admittedly, were sanctioned, a term loan of Rs.80,000/-, on, 19.02.2001, by, the OP-Bank. The later failed to repay the loan advanced by the OP-Bank to them, hence, the OP-Bank proceeded to recover the loan amount, from, the saving bank account of the complainant. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the said act of the OP-Bank in proceeding to debit, a sum of Rs.70,000/- comprised in the saving bank account of the complainant with the OP-Bank, for, setting off, the, amount of loan as advanced to the principal borrowers, who, had failed to fulfill their obligation.

6. The OP-Bank, has defended, its, aforesaid act on the strength of a general lien, the bank has, on, securities, which, also, comprised the saving bank account, of, the complainant with the OP-Bank, whose, sum was debited by the OP-Bank, purportedly in, exercise of its power of general lien, so as, to, ensure defrayment by the principal borrower of the loan amount advanced by the OP-Bank.

7. Nonetheless, it is, also, necessary, to, bear in mind the terms and conditions, which were obliged to be carried out by the complainant under the loan agreement entered into interse the contesting parties whose terms had, to, necessarily vest an express authorization in the OP-Bank, to do so, so as to vindicate their act, as, only in the eventuality of an express recital in the loan agreement arrived, at, between the complainant and the OP-Bank and its empowering the OP-Bank, to, proceed against the security, of, the guarantee lying with it, for setting, off, the loan obligation of the principal borrower when the later has defaulted, that, the, general lien, as has been exercised, could be exercised on the part of the OP-bank.


However, a perusal of the agreement of guarantee entered interse the complainant and the OP-Bank, Annexure R-5, does not detail, the, fact of such an express clause empowering the OP-Bank to proceed against the value of the saving account, as, opened by the complainant with it so as to set off the outstanding loan obligation of the principal borrower. Hence, we are, constrained not to vindicate the act of the OP-Bank, in, proceeding to, in the garb of its power of general lien extending to securities, to, set, it, off against the value of the savings bank account. In coming to the above conclusion, we draw support from a decision rendered by the Hon’ble HP State Consumer commission, in case Smt. Kuldep Kaur Gulati and others versus Allahabad Bank, in Original Complaint No.2 of 2005, decided on March 8, 2006.

8. Resultantly, we allow the complaint and direct the OP-Bank as follows:-

i) That the OP-Bank, shall, credit the amount of Rs.70,000/-, in his saving bank account;



ii) That the OP-Bank, while crediting the aforesaid amount of Rs.70,000/-, in the saving bank account of the complainant, shall also provide interest on the said amount, as is prevalent, in the saving bank account, from the date when the said amount, was debited by the OP-Bank, from his saving bank account;



iii) That the OP-Bank, shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant, for rendering deficient service;



iv) That the OP-Bank, is at liberty to take appropriate steps against the complainant, for recovery of the outstanding amount, qua the loan afforded to him, by the OP-Bank;



v) That the OP-Bank, is also burdened with litigation cost, quantified at Rs.1,000/-;



vi) That the OP-Bank, shall, shall comply with this order, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order;



9. That the complaint shall stands disposed of, in the above terms. 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.

Shri Jai Prakash S/o Late Baldev,

Resident of Village Syawan, PO Kunihar,

Tehsil Arki, Distt. Solan (H.P.)



… Complainant

Versus



Punjab National Bank,

Kunihar, Tehsil Arki, Distt. Solan (H.P.)

through its Branch Manager, The Mall, Solan (H.P.) …Opposite Party.







O R D E R:

The instant complaint has been filed by the complainants, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, avers that the OP-Bank, had, sanctioned a loan of Rs.80,000/-, on, 19.02.2001, in favour of the complainant and his father. Thereafter, the complainant started regularly depositing the loan instalments with the OP-Bank, but due to some unavoidable circumstances, he could not pay the instalments, regularly, however, in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties, he deposited a sum of Rs.70,000/- with the OP-Bank in one time settlement, hence, the OP-Bank, was under legal obligation to issue NOC, which they failed to do so. 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, raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, inasmuch, as, lack of deficiency in service and cause of action. On merits, the OP-Bank contended that since the complainant had not deposited the loan amount regularly, hence, the complainant was requested to deposit the loan amount to regularize the account, but he failed to do so, hence, an amount of Rs.70,000/- which was lying in the saving account of the complainant was debited to his loan account and notice to this effect was also given to him, on, 22.04.2006. They further contend that in case the complainant deposits the due amount, they are ready and willing to issue N.O.C. in favour of the complainant. 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 and his father, admittedly, were sanctioned, a term loan of Rs.80,000/-, on, 19.02.2001, by, the OP-Bank. The later failed to repay the loan advanced by the OP-Bank to them, hence, the OP-Bank proceeded to recover the loan amount, from, the saving bank account of the complainant. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the said act of the OP-Bank in proceeding to debit, a sum of Rs.70,000/- comprised in the saving bank account of the complainant with the OP-Bank, for, setting off, the, amount of loan as advanced to the principal borrowers, who, had failed to fulfill their obligation.

6. The OP-Bank, has defended, its, aforesaid act on the strength of a general lien, the bank has, on, securities, which, also, comprised the saving bank account, of, the complainant with the OP-Bank, whose, sum was debited by the OP-Bank, purportedly in, exercise of its power of general lien, so as, to, ensure defrayment by the principal borrower of the loan amount advanced by the OP-Bank.

7. Nonetheless, it is, also, necessary, to, bear in mind the terms and conditions, which were obliged to be carried out by the complainant under the loan agreement entered into interse the contesting parties whose terms had, to, necessarily vest an express authorization in the OP-Bank, to do so, so as to vindicate their act, as, only in the eventuality of an express recital in the loan agreement arrived, at, between the complainant and the OP-Bank and its empowering the OP-Bank, to, proceed against the security, of, the guarantee lying with it, for setting, off, the loan obligation of the principal borrower when the later has defaulted, that, the, general lien, as has been exercised, could be exercised on the part of the OP-bank.


However, a perusal of the agreement of guarantee entered interse the complainant and the OP-Bank, Annexure R-5, does not detail, the, fact of such an express clause empowering the OP-Bank to proceed against the value of the saving account, as, opened by the complainant with it so as to set off the outstanding loan obligation of the principal borrower. Hence, we are, constrained not to vindicate the act of the OP-Bank, in, proceeding to, in the garb of its power of general lien extending to securities, to, set, it, off against the value of the savings bank account. In coming to the above conclusion, we draw support from a decision rendered by the Hon’ble HP State Consumer commission, in case Smt. Kuldep Kaur Gulati and others versus Allahabad Bank, in Original Complaint No.2 of 2005, decided on March 8, 2006.

8. Resultantly, we allow the complaint and direct the OP-Bank as follows:-

i) That the OP-Bank, shall, credit the amount of Rs.70,000/-, in his saving bank account;



ii) That the OP-Bank, while crediting the aforesaid amount of Rs.70,000/-, in the saving bank account of the complainant, shall also provide interest on the said amount, as is prevalent, in the saving bank account, from the date when the said amount, was debited by the OP-Bank, from his saving bank account;



iii) That the OP-Bank, shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant, for rendering deficient service;



iv) That the OP-Bank, is at liberty to take appropriate steps against the complainant, for recovery of the outstanding amount, qua the loan afforded to him, by the OP-Bank;



v) That the OP-Bank, is also burdened with litigation cost, quantified at Rs.1,000/-;



vi) That the OP-Bank, shall, shall comply with this order, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order;



9. That the complaint shall stands disposed of, in the above terms. 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.

Jagan Nath (aged 61 years) son of Sh. Piare Lal, Ward No.5, house No.132, Samrala, Ludhiana.
(Complainant)

Vs.



Punjab National bank, Branch Samrala, LIC Building Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana through Manager.

(Opposite party)






O R D E R



1. Complainant after retirement started obtaining his pension from the opposite party through his saving bank passbook no.3466000100286954 qua his PPO no.5089. His grouse in this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is that had been withdrawing his pension from his that account regularly till September,2007. But thereafter opposite party refused to release his pension since October 2007 and did not credit intentionally monthly pension of Rs.1900/- to his account.


Though they were under obligation to credit every month pension amount to his account. He being senior citizen was totally dependant upon his pension. Due to mal practice of the opposite party, served a legal notice dated 13.4.2007 on them. Because, they falsely alleged releasing illegal payment of Rs.26,931/- as pension arrears to him. Opposite party also wrongly charged Rs.100+35=35+35=Rs.205/- on 7.11.2007 and debited the same to his account. For such deficiency in service by opposite party, claimed compensation of Rs. 40,000/- for harassment with direction to opposite party to release his pension from 10/2007 onward without any break.

2. Opposite party contested claim of the complainant by claiming his averments to be false and incorrect. However, having saving account with them and receipt of pension of Rs.1900/- per month in that account are admitted. But they claimed that complainant concealed material facts. Because, he had taken loan of Rs.26,000/- from them as per prevalent loan scheme for the pensioners. The loan was sanctioned subject to condition that the amount of pension would be payable only after adjusting withdrawal benefit amount already paid. Pension account of the complainant was maintained as per banking laws.


There was no deficiency in service on their part. Complainant operated his account upto 4.10.2007. On 7.4.2007 applied for personal loan, agreed to repay the same in 35 equal monthly instalments and authorised bank to recover monthly instalments from his pension commencing from May,2007. The pension arrears were payable after adjusting withdrawal benefit amount already paid. The pension of the complainant was regularly credited to his account upto date. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

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

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

5. After going through the material placed on the record, the position which emerges is that the complainant is getting pension of Rs.1900/- per month and that pension was credited regularly by opposite party to his saving bank account, copy of which is Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.3. But on 22.8.2006 a sum of Rs.26,931/- as pension arrears was credited to his account. Out of it, complainant withdrew Rs.20,000/- on 22.8.2006, Rs.3000/- on 23.8.2006, Rs.1800/- on 25.8.2006 and Rs.1500/- on 29.8.2006.


In the mean time, pension of Rs.1901/- on 23.8.2006 was also credited to his account. He as such on 29.8.2006 was having credit of Rs. 3538/-. But by mistake or error, opposite party again on 30.8.2006 credited a sum of Rs.26,931/- to account of the complainant showing a sum of Rs. 30,469/- in his account. Second credit of pension arrears amounting to Rs.26,931/- on 30.8.2006 by opposite party was just an error on their part. Because, this amount of pension arrears was already credited to his account on 22.8.2006. Out of that amount, he withdrew substantial amount from his account.


As error was committed by crediting again on 30.8.2006 pension arrears of Rs.26,931/- to his account, opposite party entered into a loan agreement on application Ex.R.1 of the complainant. Complainant then vide letter Ex.R.4 dated 7.4.2007 agreed to repay the advanced amount of Rs.26,000/- in 24 equal monthly instalments. He vide letter of authority Ex.R.5 empowered opposite party to recover loan in monthly instalments commencing from May,2007 from his saving bank account, to which his pension was credited. Regarding such consent clause, complainant also executed documents Ex.R.6 and R8 with the opposite party. Under these documents, complainant had authorised opposite party to realize instalments of loan of Rs.26,000./- from his saving bank account, to which his pension was also credited.

6. Probably, this arrangement was done by the opposite party as they inadvertently on two occasions had credited pension arrears of Rs.26,931/- to his account. To get the matter cleared, loan of Rs.26,000/- was shown made available to the complainant who consequently authorised opposite party to deduct loan instalments from his saving bank account. It was for such a reason that the complainant alleges that since Oct.2007, was not paid pension. Though statement of account Ex.R.11 shows that a sum of Rs.1901/- being amount of his pension has been regularly credited to his account by the opposite party from May,2006 till April 2008.

7. In these circumstances, on behalf of opposite party complainant was accused suppressing intimation about taking loan and authorizing OP bank to realize the loan instalments from his account. Whereas on behalf of the complainant argued that they received debt amount by stopping the payment of his pension, for which opposite party would be guilty of not rendering proper services to its consumer.

8. In the instant case, on account of bonafide mistake that pension arrears were credited twice to the account of the complainant and that credit wrongly given to the complainant remained as such. But complainant entered into an agreement showing taking loan of Rs.26,000/- from the opposite party and empowered them to realize that amount from his saving account, to which his pension was credited. This was mutual agreement between the parties.

Anil Industries, Chapar Road, village & P.O. Chappar, District Ludhiana, through its Proprietor-Anil Kumar.



…..Complainant.

Versus



1- Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its Zonal Manager.

2- Punjab National Bank, Head Office Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi through its General Manager.

3- Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, Ahmedgarh through its Branch Manager.

…..Opposite parties.









O R D E R








1- Complainant when failed despite doing B.Sc., to get a job, intended to set up a small manufacturing unit in village. Consequently, applied for loan and subsidy for manufacturing of agriculture implements, by approaching Khadi and village Industries Commission, Chandigarh, who recommended his application, for financial assistance. Complainant got his unit registered. Loan application forwarded by Khadi Commission, to Punjab National Bank, Ahmedgarh (opposite party no.3), being noddle branch. Opposite party no.3-bank financed term loan of Rs.13,15,000/- in installments from 27.11.2003 onwards, @ 10.5% P.A. fixed, on reduced basis. He was clearly told that the rate of interest will not be increased during the tenure of the loan.


Complainant utilized the loan for the purpose for which, it was sanctioned. But subsequently, opposite party unilaterally and without intimation, increased agreed rate of interest from 10.5% p.a. to 11.75% p.a., w.e.f. 1.4.2005. Complainant protested the same and was assured, to reduce the same. But they failed to comply with the assurance and continued to charge higher rate of interest. Subsequently, on 19.8.2006, opposite party unilaterally and arbitrarily enhanced interest from 11.75% p.a. to 12.25% p.a., without his consent and intimation.


He again protested enhancement of the interest. But they further increased interest from 12.25% p.a. to 13% p.a. from 28.8.2006 to 14.5.2007. Such unilateral enhancement of the interest was wrong, arbitrary, amounting to deficiency in service. Consequently, this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, directing opposite party to charge settled and agreed rate of interest 10.5% p.a. and excess so realized from him, be refunded with interest and be paid compensation of Rs.1 lac for causing harassment.

2- Oppoiste party in reply, pleaded that the interest has been charged as per agreement between the parties. Complaint is barred and not maintainable and complainant has suppressed material facts. Rather, complainant applied for term loan facility and executed relevant documents, as well as cash credit hypothecation on 27.11.2003. Complainant agreed to pay minimum interest @ 11.50% p.a., with monthly rests, subject to change in interest, as per RBI rules and circulars. The term loan of Rs.13.50 lacs and cash credit facility was availed by the complainant.


He further agreed to pay penal interest of 2% p.a. in default of payment and breach of terms and conditions of the executed agreement. Complainant committed default in payment, so proceedings under securitization have been initiated against him. Present complaint is counterblast to those proceedings.


Even complainant filed a civil suit, which is pending and also got one civil suit filed through one Vijay Kumar, which was dismissed on 28.1.2008 and thereafter, filed another civil suit against the bank, which is pending. In that civil suit, Vijay Kumar claimed himself to be tenant of the complainant. If that is the position, then complainant could not have transferred the possession and business hypothecated with the bank. So, violated terms of the agreement. Rest of the allegations are also denied.

3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4- Main question to be determined is whether while availing loan, complainant had agreed to pay fixed rate of interest or interest agreed was floating. Consequently, the matter for adjudication owes its existence to loan agreement, executed between the parties. Ex.R2 is the copy of term loan agreement. Vide this agreement, it is apparent that complainant had agreed to repay the term loan of Rs.13,50,000/- with interest @ 0.50% over the Reserve Bank, with a minimum of 11.5% p.a., with monthly rests.


So, it means agreed rate of interest was fluctuating and not fixed one. The minimum rate of interest was also 11.50% and not 10.5%, as alleged by the complainant, in his complaint. Similarly, in agreement of hypothecation Ex.R3, rate of interest is also mentioned to be floating and not fixed.

Honourable Judge Sahab,

Deficiency in Service : ATM Transaction

Honourable Sir,

1. I am Customer No 200299214. Acct No 01420 104010 64935 of PNB Extn Counter Bihar Reg. Centre U/B Danapur Cantt Ph 06115 227282, 223085.
2. On 27 Nov 09 at 20:52 I asked fo Bal at ATM ID S1AN00125404 of SBI. I Received a WRONG reply.
3. In a minute I tried to WithDraw Rs.10,000/-BUT that ATM showed Error Code 263 BUT the ATM did not provide the above mentioned Cash Withdrawal of Rs Ten Thouand.
4. I went to PNB ATM ID D02014200 at Thana Mor, Main Road Danapur Bihar-801503 at 21:07 on 27/11/09, Tried to find balance and then withdraw Rs.10,000/-BUT the ATM did not provide the above mentioned Cash Withdrawal of Rs Ten Thouand after Repeated Tries.