Useful Information Customer Care Address Popular Judgments
FAQ Consumer Forum Reliance Karnataka Country Club Bajaj Allianz State Bank Of India
Court Fee Airtel Chandigarh Idea ICICI Lombord Andhra Bank
Where to file Complaint Vodafon Bengal Tata Indicom HDFC Standard Life HDFC Bank
Notice Sample Idea Uttarakhand Airtel IffcoTokio Icici Bank
First Appeal Consumer Forum BSNL Gujarat Reliance Metlife Punjab National Bank
Consumer Protection Act Nokia Rajasthan Vodafone SBI Life Insurance Bank Of India
RTI for Banks Micromax Assam Mobile Store Reliance General Insurance Canara Bank
Insurance Ombudsman Lava Uttar Pradesh MTNL New India Insurance Bank Of Baroda
Banking Ombudsman Karbonn Jharkhand Birla Sun Life National Insurance United India Insurance
How to start DND Sony Bihar LIC Oriental Insurance State Bank Mysore
Irctc TATA AIG India Bank


+ Submit Your Complaint
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: UCO Bank

  1. #1
    admin is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,016

    Default UCO Bank

    BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

    PRESENT: SRI P.V.SUBRAHMANYAM, B.A,B.L., PRESIDENT.
    SMT U.SUNITA, M.A., LADY MEMBER.
    SRI MEKALA NARSIMHAREDDY, M.A,LL.B.,P.G.D.C.P.L
    MALE MEMBER.

    Wednesday the 18th day of March, 2009
    CC.NO.33/2008
    Between:
    Ch. Vittal Sharma,
    S/o Kirshna Murthy, Age: 38 yrs,
    R/o H.No. 7-25, Sairam Nagar, Jogipet,
    Medak District.
    … complainant.

    And

    1.The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Branch,
    At Sangareddy, Medak Dist.

    2. The Sub-Registrar, Sangareddy, (Registrations)
    Medak District.
    … Opposite parties.


    This case came up for final hearing before us on 25.02.2009 in the presence of the complainant in person and Sri P. Raghavendra Rao , Advocate for complainant . Sri R.V. Subba Rao, Advocate for Opposite party Nos.1 , Sri K. Narsing Rao, Government Pleader for Opposite party No. 2, upon hearing the arguments of the complainant ‘s advocate, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following.
    O R D E R
    ( Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
    The complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct opposite party Nos. 1& 2 to refund to the complainant Rs. 12,800/-
    -2-
    which was spent by the complainant towards stamp duty, legal opinion and document charges and also to pay Rs. 27,000/- towards interest paid to private money lenders and to further direct opposite party No. 1 to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony and harassment, with interest at 12% p.a.

    1) The contents of the complaint in brief are as follows:

    The complainant is absolute owner of open place of house bearing No. 7-25 measuring 206.11 sq.yards situated at prabhu road , Jogipet town, Andole Mandal, Medak District. The complainant obtained permission from gram panchayat, Jogipet for construction of residential house in the above place. He approached opposite party No. 1 during June, 2007 for sanction of housing loan. Opposite party No. 1 agreed to sanction and directed the complainant to submit relevant records to send the loan file to their standing counsel for legal opinion. Accordingly the complainant submitted all the required documents. Opposite party No. 1 obtained legal opinion from their standing counsel and after satisfying with the same and with the title, directed the complainant to pay Rs.3,900/- towards processing charge/ fee for sanction of loan and insisted the complainant to pay the amount for creating equitable mortgage and also to endorse the charge in the books of opposite party No.2 in favour of opposite party No. 1. Accordingly the complainant deposited Rs.8,445/- (which includes Rs.3,900/-) towards stamp duty with the State Bank of Hyderabad, Branch at Sangareddy in current account No. 8577 standing in the name of opposite party No. 2 on 3.11.2007. The complainant of visited the bank of opposite party No. 1 number of times for sanction of housing loan. Without any reason opposite party No. 1 dragged on the matter on some pretext or other and finally returned the documents to the complainant without sanctioning the housing loan; without any valid reason, during the month of December, 2007. On the assurance of opposite party No. 1 the complainant borrowed money from private finances with interest @ 2% per month on Rs. 3 Lakhs and paid interest of Rs.27,000/- @ Rs.9,000/- per month for the said private loan and purchased material and raised structures. Due to the negligent attitude of
    -3-
    opposite party No. 1 the complainant wasted five months precious time and spent Rs.2,000/- for obtaining all necessary documents and paid Rs.1500/- to the standing counsel towards opinion and Rs.3,900/- towards processing fee and Rs.3,900/- towards stamp duty for creating mortgage and Rs.1500/- towards conveyance. Thus the complainant paid a total amount of Rs.12,800/- for no fault of him. The complainant submitted his representation to opposite party No. 1 through register post on 20.05.2008 for return of stamp duty, Registration charges and other expenses. On receipt of the same opposite party No. 1 returned processing fees only of Rs.3,900/- and informed that stamp duty was paid to the government account. Further stated that there are defects in the title deed as such opposite party No. 1 was unable to refund Rs.3,900/-. Infact the complainant paid the said the stamp duty to the government on the assurance of opposite party No. 1. At this stage opposite party No.1 failed to sanction a loan to the complainant inspite of submitting all the required documents without any defects and also deposited required processing charge and stamp duty as per the direction of the opposite party No. 1. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 1. Without confirmation of title of the complainant opposite party No. 1 should not have directed the complainant to pay all the above amounts which are paid by him on the confirmation of sanction of loan basing on the legal opinion. If the complainant did not have clear title, legal opinion could not have been given by the panel advocate.

    2) However the complainant availed housing loan from another bank i.e. State Bank of Hyderabad, Sangareddy Branch basing on the same documents which were processed and returned by opposite party No. 1. The complainant suffered great loss and mental agony due to deficiency in service on part of opposite party No. 1 for which opposite parties No. 1 and 2 liable to pay Rs.50,000/- for cansing inconvenience to the complainant and for making him to go round opposite party No. 1 for nearly five months by cansing mental tension. Complainant got a legal notice issued to opposite parties No. 1 and 2 for which opposite party No. 1 sent a reply with vague allegations and falsely claimed Rs.50,000/- damages from the complainant. Opposite party No. 1 admitted in his
    -4-
    reply that the complainant has submitted all the required documents and after verification the same was sent to legal opinion. Opposite party No. 2 has not given any reply hence the complaint.

    3) Opposite parties resisted the claim by filing separate counters. The counter of opposite party No. 1 is to the following effect:

    The relationship between the complainant and the bank will not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. It is true that the complainant is owner of open place of house property as evidenced by documents filed along with the complaint. It is also true that the complainant obtained permission for construction of house from gram panchayat , Jogipet and that he approached the bank for housing loan of Rs. 10 Lakhs and submitted relevant documents. The bank has not intimated it’s decision over the application of the complainant. It is true that the bank has received opinion from advocate on the title of the property of the complainant, but it is not final. The bank has to go through the opinion and supporting documents and take a decision. While verifying the records /documents the bank has found the that the advocate who gave opinion is not in panel of advocates of the bank. On the request of the complainant the bank orally intimated him the expenditure to be incurred if housing loan is granted, i.e. expenses towards processing charges and stamp duty for creation of mortgage. While the matter was pending in the bank the complainant deposited processing fees of Rs.3,900/- without any demand from the bank. As the application of the complainant was rejected on the ground that the complainant did not have clear title over the property the process fee was refunded to him. The complainant has deposited the process fee even before issuing any sanction letter. Opposite party No. 1 is not concerned with sanction of housing loan to the complainant by the another bank, because opposite party No. 1 has got its own rules and regulations. The complainant got the opinion of the advocate who is not in the panel of opposite party No. 1. The allegation of deposit of Rs.8,445/- with opposite party No. 2 is baseless. Opposite party No. 1 bank has not advised the complainant to deposit any amount with opposite party No. 2 towards stamp duty. The challan
    -5-
    filed by the complainant does not pertain to the amount paid by him to opposite party No. 2 towards stamp duty. The bank sent suitable reply to the notice of the complainant. The complaint may therefore be dismissed with costs.

    4) The counter of opposite party No. 2 in brief is as follows:

    Opposite party No. 2 is not concerned for refund of stamp duty on the deposit of title deed as the complainant has not approached the office for refund of stamp duty. However refund of stamp duty must be within four months from the date of remittance vide G.O.Ms. No. 222, dated. 19.02.2005, as such the relief sought by the complainant against opposite party No. 2 is out of the purview of opposite party No. 2 and hence the complaint is liable to dismissed. Refund is not available at this stage because the complainant has not made an application within four months for refund of stamp duty. The complaint may therefore be dismissed against opposite party No. 2.

    5) Evidence affidavits of the complainant and opposite party No. 2 are filed to prove their respect averments. Exs. A1 to A22 are marked on behalf of the complainant. No documents are marked on behalf of opposite parties. No affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 to prove their counter allegations. Written arguments of complainant filed. No written argument are filed on behalf of the opposite parties. Oral arguments of complainant’s advocates heard. No oral arguments are advanced for opposite parties. Perused the record.

    The point for consideration is whether the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and that he is entitled for the various amounts claimed in the complaint?

    6) The case of the complainant is that he applied for housing loan in opposite party No. 1 bank to construct house in his site bearing No. 7-25 ad measuring 206.11 sq.yards situated in Prabhu Road, Jogipet Town, Andole Mandal, Medak District and as per the instructions of opposite party No. 1 he
    -6-
    submitted the required papers for sanction of loan and also paid Rs.3,900/- towards processing fee and also paid stamp duty for registration of mortgage but finally opposite party No.1 refused to sanction loan to the complainant on the ground that there is no clear title to the complainant over the property offered as security over which he intended to construct house and there by opposite party No.1 committed deficiency in service and therefore opposite party No. 1 is liable to pay Rs.12,800/- to the complainant which represents the amount incurred by the complainant towards expenses including deposit of processing fees and stamp duty for registration of mortgage. But the case of opposite party No. 1 is that it is true that the complainant approached opposite party No. 1 bank, for sanction of housing loan but when the application of the complainant was under consideration of the bank, the complainant hurriedly deposited processing fee and stamp duty for registration. According to opposite party No. 1 it has simply informed the complainant the amount to be deposited towards processing fee in the event of sanction of loan but when the application of the complainant was under consideration the deposit was made by the complainant for which opposite party No. 1 cannot be held responsible. It is the further case of the complainant that after deciding not to sanction loan, opposite party No. 1 informed the same to the complainant and there after on his request the amount of Rs. 3,900/- which was deposited by him in the bank, without any instructions there for, was refunded to him but the amount which was deposited by the complainant in the government account towards stamp duty for registration cannot be paid by the opposite party No. 1 as opposite party No. 1 is not concerned with the said deposit. It is the further case of opposite party No.1 that the legal opinion submitted by the complainant is not from the panel advocate of the bank of opposite party No. 1 and the said opinion is not binding on the bank and the bank is not concerned with the expenses incurred by the complainant.

    7) In view of the rival contentions of the both parties let us now consider the evidence produced by the complainant to find out whether the same is sufficient to prove deficiency in service alleged against opposite party No. 1.
    -7-
    8) Because it is the case of the complainant that as per the instructions of opposite party No. 1 bank and in view of the promise made by them to sanction housing loan, he barrowed loans from private persons to the tune of Rs.3 Lakhs and paid interest to the tune of Rs.27,000/- and also paid Rs.1,500/- to standing counsel of the bank towards opinion and paid Rs.3,900/- towards stamp duty to create mortgage and Rs.3,900/- towards processing fee and incurred Rs.1,500/- towards conveyance , the burden is on him to prove that all the above amounts were spent by him at the instance of opposite party No.1. Even though it is alleged by the complainant in his letter to opposite party No. 1 bank covered by Ex. A15 that field officer of the opposite party No. 1 bank, who is looking the after the shelter loans, advised him so he paid processing fee of Rs.3,900/- and even though the case of the opposite party No. 1 is that there were no such instructions to the complainant, the complainant has not furnished at least the name of the said field officer nor he is made a party to this proceedings or his affidavit is filed to prove the contentions.

    9) In view of the point at issue it is not necessary to refer to the various documents marked by the complainant as exhibits on his behalf . Therefore such of the documents which are necessary will only be referred .

    10) There is not even a scrap of paper from the complainant’s side to prove that the various amounts alleged to have been spent by him was at the instance or on the promise of opposite party No. 1. During arguments the learned counsel for the complainant contended that as per the oral instructions of opposite party No. 1 bank the complainant acted upon. When allegation of the complainant is not admitted by opposite party No. 1 it becomes a fact in issue and the complainant is bound to prove it. In the absence of any satisfactory proof from the complainant’s side, his version which is in dispute, cannot be taken as proved.

    11) Normal procedure is that on receipt of any application for shelter loan/ housing loan the bank has to refer the said application together with the documents filed along with it to one of their panel advocates for opinion. But in this

    -8-
    case without opposite party No. 1 bank referring the application of the complainant, the complainant himself obtained legal opinion from an advocate by name Sri. Anantha Rao Kulkarni. According to opposite party No. 1 the said advocate is not their panel advocate, but according to the complainant he is panel advocate of opposite party No. 1. To prove the same the complainant’s advocate filed Xerox copy of order dated.23.07.2008 passed by this forum in CC.No. 18/2007 which shows that Sri. Anantha Rao Kulkarni, advocate defended opposite party No. 1 hearing who is opposite party in the said case. An advocate appearing for a bank in a case cannot raise a presumption that the said advocate is a panel advocate of that bank. Even presuming for a moment that the said advocate is a panel advocate of opposite party No. 1 bank, the opinion furnished by him in a matter which is not referred by the bank cannot be said to deserve any consideration by the bank. On a perusal of the opinion furnished by said advocate, copy of which is marked as Ex.A22, Annexure B- “Form Of Legal Scrutiny Report” dated.7.2.2008 does not contain reference number, if the documents are received by the said advocate from opposite party No. 1 for his opinion. However at the end of sheet number 7 in Ex.A22 a computer printed matter is seen in one line as “the documents sent to me are returned herewith duly signed by me.” No where in Ex.A22, which is in 12 sheets, it is stated by the advocate Sri. Anatha Rao kulkarni from whom he has received the documents of the complainant for opinion. No such covering letter is obtained by the complainant from the said advocate to prove that opposite party No. 1 bank sought opinion of Sri. Anatha Rao Kulkarni advocate. At the instance of the complainant’s advocate the original opinion of the said advocate, which was submitted by the complainant to opposite party No. 1, was sent for. It is in 11 sheets on a perusal of it there are some differences, when the same is compared with Ex.A22. Even though the original report contains para numbers 1to 10 in page numbers 3, 4 and 5, Ex.A22 contains paras 1 to 7 only. It is curious to note that the report in paras 1 to 7 in Ex.A22 in a concluded report. Like wise in page 7 in Ex.A22 remarks are typed in one paragraph where as the original remarks are in four paragraphs. Another difference is Ex.A22 is dated 7.02.2008 where as the original shows 06.07.2007.

    -9-
    12) As already stated above even if the opinion of Sri Anantha Rao Kulkarni, advocate was sought, it cannot be said that opposite party No. 1 has to accept the same and sanction loan, if the bank is not satisfied with the title of the complainant over the property on which house loan was sought.

    13) If the complainant deposited Rs.3,900/- towards stamp duty for creating mortgage, it is for the complainant to approach the concerned government department in whose account the amount was deposited by him for refund, as rightly stated by opposite party No. 1 in their letter, copy of which is marked as Ex.A16.

    14) The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that on the same set of documents State Bank of Hyderabad, Sangareddy Branch granted housing loan to the complainant, therefore the attitude of opposite party No. 1 must be presumed to be deficiency in service. Granting of loan on the same set of documents by State Bank of Hyderabad cannot by itself gives raise a presumption of deficiency in service on part of opposite party No. 1. On what considerations State Bank of Hyderabad sanctioned loan to the complainant are not known. State Bank of Hyderabad is not a party to the proceedings. Therefore this argument does not hold good.

    15) In view of the discussion supra we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No. 2 is not at all answerable to any of the grievances of the complainant. It is therefore held that the complainant is not entitled to any relief against the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. The point is answered against the complainant.

    16) In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

  2. #2
    adv.sumit is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,363

    Default UCO Bank

    Suja Alex
    ...........Appellant(s)

    Vs.

    1. State Bank of Travancore, Vazhuthacaud Branch, Thiruvananthapuram.

    2. UCO Bank, 91/1, Hazra Road, Kolkatta, West Bengal-26.


    Opposite party:




    3. Speed and Safe Courier (P) Ltd., Near Government Hospital, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram.








    ORDER


    The case of the complainant is as follows: The cheque bearing No. 043579 dated 15.11.2003 amounting to Rs. 31,500/- drawn on UCO Bank Hazra Road, Calcutta signed by Mr. Rampuria, Managing Director of Zigma software Ltd., Kolkata was presented by the complainant to State Bank of Travancore, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram on 11.05.2004 for collection as the complainant maintained a Savings Bank account in the said 1st opposite party bank. The cheque entrusted for collection was returned with an endorsement “cheque is out of date”. The complainant presented the cheque in opposite party bank on 11.05.2004 and the cheque was sent for collection to the drawee bank late resulting in the cheque becoming stale. The said instance constituted deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice. The 1st opposite party bank was duty bound to forward the cheque to the drawee bank on the very same day of the presentation of the cheque. The 1st opposite party bank delayed in forwarding of the cheque which resulted in cheque reaching the drawee bank only on 18.05.2004. The validity of the cheque was upto 15.05.2004 and due to negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party, the cheque became stale when it reached the drawee bank.


    The said act of the 1st opposite party constituted deficiency in service, negligence and imperfection in service. The act of the 2nd opposite party bank in dishonouring the cheque by stating the cheque is out of date also constitutes deficiency in service. The act of the 1st opposite party bank deprived the complainant of the opportunity to realize Rs. 31,500/- from the drawer of the cheque. If the cheque was dishonoured then the complainant had the right to institute criminal proceedings under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. With a stale cheque, a complaint under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act cannot be lodged and the said option was foreclosed.

    Opposite parties filed their separate versions. The 1st opposite party in their version contends as follows: Complainant presented the said cheque bearing No. 043579 dated 15.11.2003 for the sum of Rs. 31,500/- drawn on UCO Bank, Hazra Road, Calcutta, at the first opposite party bank only on 11.05.2004 and the said cheque was entered into the computer system for collection on 11.05.2004 and sent for collection by the 1st opposite party on 12.05.2004, to its collecting branch-Calcutta Branch, through M/s Speed and Safe Courier Services Pvt Ltd.


    The said cheque was sent for collection promptly by the 1st opposite party and neither deficiency in service nor negligence and unfair trade practices were caused by the 1st opposite party as alleged. The complainant herself was negligent for sending the said cheque for collection, which was dated 15.11.2003 and presented for collection only on 11.05.2004 though she was aware of the fact that its validity period expires on 15.05.2004 and it could be collected only by sending to Calcutta. The 1st opposite party was prompt and punctual in sending the said cheque for collection and the allegations of the complainant that such sincere and efficient service are deficient, negligent and imperfect will tantamount to defamation. There is no deficiency or defect in the service of the 1st opposite party. No delay was caused from the part of the 1st opposite party in sending the said cheque for collection.

    The 2nd opposite party contended that the alleged incident occurred only due to the negligence and latches of the complainant herself. This opposite party is not a necessary party in this complaint and the complainant has not sustained any grievance due to the act of this opposite party and hence the complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties. The complainant is not a consumer of this opposite party and this opposite party in this particular alleged transaction was not rendering any service as defined in the consumer Protection Act. It is an admitted fact that the complainant obtained the alleged cheque dated 15.11.2003 in August 2003. Complainant is a well educated lady and she very well knows that cheques should be presented to the bank for encashment within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. She withheld the cheque almost the entire period of its validity and presented on 11.05.2004 i.e; just 3 days before its expiry period, for an interstate collection. If she was prudent as an ordinary woman, in similar circumstances the alleged incident would not have happened.


    From the admissions in the complaint itself the complainant is well aware that the particular cheque reached this opposite party only on 18.05.2003 that is after it became stale. She also knows that with a stale cheque, a complaint under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act cannot to be lodged. With all these knowledge this complainant filed this complaint against this opposite party only to harass this opposite party. No bank is entitled to honour a stale cheque. Hence this opposite party correctly returned the cheque for the reason “cheque is out of date”. This opposite party duly followed the directions of the Reserve Bank of India and there is no deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint. It is respectfully submitted that the complainant filed this complaint with out clean hands and with malice intention so as to get unlawful gain over this opposite party. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed. This opposite party is not liable to pay the complainant any amount as compensation or cost as prayed for or as stated in the statement of account.

    The Courier company, the additional 3rd opposite party, contends that the complainant is not a consumer or a beneficiary of service of this opposite party or is there any privity of contract between the complainant and this opposite party. This opposite party has not offered or rendered any service to the complainant for consideration. This opposite party is the approved courier of the 1st opposite party and is rendering services to State Bank of Travancore for more than a decade. On the evening of 12.05.2004 the 1st opposite party has entrusted a cover to this opposite party to be delivered at its Calcutta branch under Consignment Note No. A 58307. This opposite party is not in a position to say as to what was its contents as it was sealed.


    The value of the consignment or its contents were also not declared to this opposite party by the 1st opposite party at the time of booking. The said consignment No. A 58308 entrusted to this opposite party on the evening of 12.05.2004 was promptly delivered at their branch name State Bank of Travancore Calcutta on 15.05.2004 that is within the stipulated time agreed upon between this opposite party and 1st opposite party. As such there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of this opposite party. The complainant has no cause of action against this opposite party. This opposite party is not a necessary or proper party to this proceedings. This opposite party is unnecessarily dragged into these proceedings. The above complaint as against this opposite party is liable to be dismissed with costs and it is prayed accordingly.

    The issues that would arise for consideration are:-

    1.

    Whether there is any delay on the part of the opposite parties?
    2.

    Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

    Points (i) & (ii):- From the contentions and allegations, the aspect to be looked into is whether there has been any wilful delay on the part of any of the opposite parties. The complainant has admitted that the cheque has reached the 2nd opposite party, UCO Bank, on 18.05.2004, i.e, after the expiry of 6 months from the date of cheque and thus the same has been returned by the 2nd opposite party as it has become stale. Hence whether 1st opposite party has promptly sent the cheque for collection and whether there is any inordinate delay are to be looked into. As per the version of the 3rd opposite party, the cheque has been delivered at the Calcutta branch on 15.05.2004 which is within the stipulated time agreed between the 3rd opposite party and the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party contends that the cheque reached them on 18.05.2003. There is no dispute with regard to the date of receipt of the cheque by the 2nd opposite party.

    From the records on file, it can be seen that the SBT has entrusted the consignment, to Calcutta, with Speed & Safe Courier on 12.05.2004. This is admittedly an outstation cheque which of course will take time for clearance though the complainant has deposed that she doesn't know whether delay will be caused for the same. Here the cheque has reached the Calcutta branch of the 1st opposite party on 15.05.2004, the date on which the validity period of the cheque expires. The complainant has alleged that the 1st opposite party delayed in forwarding the cheque to the drawee bank which has resulted in cheque reaching the drawee bank only on 18.05.2004. The 1st opposite party in their affidavit has sworn that the complainant herself was negligent for sending the said cheque dated 15.11.2003 for collection and presented for collection only on 11.05.2004 though she was aware of the fact that its validity period expires on 15.05.2004 and it could be collected only by sending it to Calcutta.

    In order to find negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party, delay has to be established. 15.05.2004 is a Saturday and 16.05.2004 is a Sunday and the cheque has reached the drawee bank i.e UCO Bank on 18.05.2004 which is a Tuesday. It is clear from the above that the cheque has been consequently send for realisation, without any delay, to the UCO Bank. On consideration of the facts and circumstances leading to the return of the cheque, there is no ground to hold any kind of deficiency in service. In this case from the records and evidence on file we do not find any wilful or inordinate delay or negligence on the part of the opposite parties. We further find that the complainant is also equally responsible for the dishonouring of the cheque as the same was presented for collection on 11.05.2004 only to the bank where the complainant was maintaining an account and the complainant was well aware that the outstation cheque has to reach the drawee bank which is at Calcutta on or before 15.05.2004.

    Taking an overall view from the records on file and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the view that no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the opposite parties and there appears to be no element of neglect or deficiency in service and hence the complaint is only to be dismissed.

    In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

  3. #3
    adv.sumit is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,363

    Default UCO Bank

    Shri Balmukand Nihalta, (Retired BDO),

    R/o Ward No. 5, Nagar Panchayat, Vill. Chopal,

    Tehsil Chopal, Distt. Shimla, H.P..





    … Complainant.

    Versus





    UCO Bank, Branch Office at Rohru, Tehsil Rohru, Distt. Shimla, H.P.



    …Opposite Party.











    O R D E R:


    This 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 availed the facility of consumer loan on 18.8.1998 from the OP, which was to be repaid in monthly installments of Rs. 1450/-.


    He was regularly paying the installments to the OP, but due to some unavoidable circumstances, he could not repay the installment, hence, the OP initiated recovery proceeding against him and instituted a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 53,484/- which was decided on 21.06.2002, he further proceeded to aver that thereafter he contacted the OP Bank for settlement of the loan amount, pursuant to which OP Bnak agreed for one time settlement and deposited a sum of Rs. 89,000/- whereas the OP proceeded to file an Execution Petition against him, which is aver to be an unfair trade practice. Hence, it is averred that, there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

    2. Notice of this complaint was issued to the OP, who despite valid service through registered post failed to put in appearance before this Forum, hence was ordered to be proceeded against exparte.

    3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

    4. Though, the complainant avers that in one time settlement he had deposited a sum of Rs. 89,000/- against the loan amount of Rs. 68,000/-, yet, there is no material on record to substantiate the fact that he he has deposited the entire loan amount as per the one time settlement. The perusal of the complaint reveals that the OP Bank had also filed a civil suit against the complainant which was decided exparte on 21.06.2002 and the OP Bank has also instituted a Execution Petition for recovery of decreetal amount.


    Since the matter is sub-judice before the civil court, as per the averments of the complainant, himself, we are not inclined to go into the controversy whether there was one time settlement between the parties and that the complainant has deposited amount after one time settlement and that the execution Petition filed by the OP Bank for recovery of the decreetal amount constitutes a deficiency in service or not.


    Since the matter is sub-judice before the Civil Court this Forum can not adjudicate the complaint in a summary proceeding under Consumer Protection Act 1986. As such we find no merits in this complaint and is accordingly dismissed. The learned counsel for the complainant undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules, and since the OP have not contested the complaint, as such office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the OP through UPC for compliance forthwith. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

  4. #4
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default UCO Bank

    FIRST APPEAL NO. 366/2008
    RESERVED AT HAMIRPUR ON 27.11.2009

    DATE OF DECISION: 14.12.2009
    In the matter of:

    Shri Satish Kumar son of Shri Ram Asra, R/O Village and Post Office, Mehre, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P.

    … … Appellant/complainant..

    Versus

    1. The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Lathiani, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, H.P.

    2. Shri Surinder Kumar Kalsi son of Shri Prem Dass, R/O Village Rajli, Post Office, Lathiani, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, H.P.

    … … Respondents/OPs.

    Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.

    Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

    Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member.



    Whether approved for reporting? Yes



    For the Appellant: Mr. D.R. Kamal, Advocate, with appellant in

    Person, who has been identified as such by his learned Counsel.

    For the Respondents: Mr. O.S. Patiyal, Advocate,

    For respondent No.1.



    None for respondent No.2.
    O R D E R
    Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.



    1. Appellant filed Consumer Complaint No.103/2006 before District Forum, Hamirpur. According to him, he was having Account No.1647 with respondent No.1 under Laghu Bachat Yojna. On behalf of respondent No.1, respondent No.2 used to collect money from time to time from his shop and upto 31.7.2000, he had deposited Rs.35,400/-. OPs in law are liable to pay back this amount to him with interest. He visited number of times the respondent No.1-bank when he was assured about the release of the money, but after decision of the criminal case which it had initiated against respondent No.2 under Section 420 I.P.C. Original pass book of his account was retained by respondent No.1. Finally, in March, 2006, when appellant went to respondent No.1, it refused to pay the aforesaid sum of Rs.35,400/- with accrued interest.

    This gave him cause of action to maintain this complaint. Besides this sum, appellant also claimed Rs.10,000/- on account of physical as well as mental tension and interest on Rs.35,400/-. A sum of Rs.3,000/- was claimed as litigation expenses.



    2. Respondent No.2 did not contest the complaint and he was set ex-parte. So is his position in this appeal. Respondent No.1 contested the claim of the appellant. According to it, Account No.1647 was being maintained by the appellant. Only two entries of deposit of Rs.450/- and Rs.420/- dated 3.10.1999 and 3.1.2000 respectively are there in the bank records in Account No.1647. Respondent No.1 was liable to release this amount and it never refused for it. Pass Book, if any was taken into possession by the bank or the Police, then its photo copy must have been given to him. Therefore, according to the bank, this is neither a case of deficiency in service nor of unfair trade practice.



    3. Record of the complaint file shows that the sole basis for maintaining the complaint by the appellant was entries made in the pass book by respondent No.2 who according to the appellant used to act as an agent of respondent No.1 and had been making entries of the money paid by depositors like him.



    4. Possibility of the pass book being tampered was also set up as a ground for rejection of the complaint. The amount of Rs.870/- that was lying in deposit, respondent No.1-bank was always ready and willing to release the same in favour of the appellant. Thus, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint. District Forum below vide impugned order has directed the respondent No.1 to release a sum of Rs.870/- in favour of the appellant alongwith bank rate of interest from time to time. Hence, this appeal.



    5. Photo copy of the first and last page of the pass book that was admittedly taken into custody by the police is there on the complaint file. This document is Annexure C.4. Original Pass Book was tagged with Criminal Complaint No.15-1/2008, in case titled as State Versus Surinder Singh Kalsi, (respondent No.2) under Sections 408 and 420 I.P.C. pending in the Court of JMIC II, Una, as such original complaint file was requisitioned and was examined by us. Its perusal showed that in the original pass book of the account in question on 23.5, balance shown in the account of the appellant is Rs.35,400/-. Record was produced at Hamirpur on 27.11.2009 by the Court official, when the appeal was further heard and order was reserved. Evidentiary value of the pass book came up for consideration before the National Commission in the case of Superintendent of Post Offices, Balighat & Ors. Versus Mahendra Nath Basak, Secretary, Safanagar High School, I (1995) CPJ 177 (NC). This decision was relied upon by the District Forum below while dismissing the complaint.



    6. In our opinion, no benefit can be derived by respondent No.1 from this decision of the National Commission. Reason being that this is not a case of regular deposits being made by pay-in-slips by the appellant while depositing money in the bank i.e. respondent No.1. If that was the situation, then in addition to the pass book, appellant was duty bound to have produced the counterfoils of pay-in-slips to demonstrate that he was regularly depositing the amount on the dates as reflected in the pass book. That is admittedly not the situation in the present appeal. Reason being that it is admitted case of the parties contesting this appeal, that as Laghu Bachat Yojna Agent of respondent no.1, respondent no.2 was collecting money from depositors like the appellant.



    7. To our query, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent No.2 who was Laghu Bachat Yojna agent of respondent No.1 would visit the premises of his client, collect the money on behalf of respondent No.1 and would make the entry immediately on receipt of money in the pass book. It is not the case of respondent No.1 that pass book had not been issued by it to the appellant. To the contrary, stand of the respondent No.1 while contesting the claim of the appellant is, that in its ledger account, copy whereof is Annexure R.2, only Rs.870/- has been reflected to have been deposited. Here the manner of making deposit under the Laghu Bachat Yojna assumes significance coupled with letter of appointment of Laghu Bachat Yojna Agent issued by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2. Complaint was lodged by respondent No.1 with the police regarding respondent No.2 having cheated number of persons. Copy of the F.I.R. No.69/2000 is there at page 42 of the complaint file. In original pass book there are entries which were seen not only by us, but also by learned Counsel for the parties present on 27.11.2009 at Hamirpur.



    8. Mr. Patiyal forcefully urged that bank is not bound by such entries and he laid emphasis on the decision of National Commission relied upon by the District Forum below, referred to in the preceding paras by us. We have already dealt with this aspect by holding that this is not a case of ordinary deposit being made by the appellant in the bank. Once this conclusion is arrived at as also keeping in view the fact that money was being collected by the appointee of the bank i.e. respondent No.2, therefore mere denial on its part does not dislodge the claim of the appellant by respondent No.1-bank.

    9. At the risk of repetition, it may be appropriate to observe here that respondent No.1 itself admits that respondent No.2 had cheated number of persons to the extent of Rs.4.00 to 4.50 lacs. This could be more on further verification. In these circumstances, we are of the view that bank cannot be exonerated of the liability to reimburse the appellant in this case to the extent of Rs.35,400/- besides interest and cost. Since respondent No.2 has not come forth to contest either the complaint or this appeal, we are further of the view that liability of both the respondents is joint and several.

    10. No other point was urged.

    In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. As a result of it, order passed by District forum, Una, in Consumer Complaint No.103/2006, dated 14.11.2006 is hereby set aside and consequently the said complaint is allowed, thereby holding that both the respondents jointly and severally are liable to pay Rs.35,400/- with 6% interest on this amount from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 27.6.2006, till the date of its deposit/payment whichever is earlier, alongwith Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of litigation in complaint as well as in this appeal. It is made clear that in the first instance, respondent No.1 shall pay the amount in terms of this order to the appellant and thereafter on the strength of this order, it shall be entitled to execute the same against respondent No.2 before the District Forum below. Appeal is allowed subject to these directions.



    Office is directed to send copy of this order to S/Shri V.K. Sharma and Sunil Verma, Advocates free of cost at their address, District Courts, Una as per rules and by post to respondent No.2 in the like manner.



    Shimla,

  5. #5
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default

    20th November , 2009 .
    BEFORE :

    Sri P. K. Pattanaik , President ,

    AND

    Smt. Binodini Devi , Member .
    Name of the Parties .

    Sri Shyam Sundar Moharana, aged about 73 years

    S/o Late Dharma Moharana,

    At/P.O./P.S: Itamati (Kansarisahi)

    Dist- Nayagarh.


    ---------------------- Complainant .
    -Vrs-

    1. Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Itamati

    At/P.O./ P.S.:- Itamati

    Dist:- Nayagarh .

    2. The Zonal Manger, Zonal Office,

    UCO Bank C-2, Ashok Nagar,Unit-II

    Bhubaneswar- 751009

    ---------------- Opp . Parties .

    Counsel for the complainant : - Sri R.K.Sahoo, (Advocate)

    Counsel for the O.Ps : - Sri C. Jena ( Advocate )

    Date of appearance of O.Ps : - 02-07-2009

    Date of hearing : - 22-10-2009

    Date of Judgment : - 20-11-2009

    6

    J U D G M E N T

    P. K. Pattanaik , President :-


    Deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps is the grievance of the complainant .

    The complainant's case in brief is as follows .

    The complainant is a retired V.A.S. and is a pension holder of the State Govt. through the O.P No.1 bearing S.B .Account No.5541 since 1994. His third son Sambhu Prasad Moharana had taken a term loan from the O.P No.1 on 26.10.1999 and at that time the complainant had given an under taking that if his son does not repay the loan amount along with interest the loan amount may be deducted from his pension. His son cleared the term loan and again availed the cash credit ;loan of Rs.1,50,000 /- on 17.11.01 bearing cash credit loan account No.CC30 and the complainant was not a guarantor for the repayment of the cash credit loan . He had not given any under taking for the deduction from his pension account if his son does not repay the cash reedit loan. The complainant has no knowledge about the cash credit loan of the son and the O.P No.1 never intimated or sent any notice to the complainant regarding the default of his son relating to cash credit loan. The O.P.No.1 without taking any legal action against his son has arbitrarily deducted Rs.3,000/- on 27.2.2009, Rs.18,000/- on 14.3.09 , Rs.3000/- on 2.4.09, Rs.14,000/- on 29.4.09 and Rs.5000/- on 29.4.09 from his pension account No.5541 towards the repayment of cash credit loan of his son. The complainant has protested several times against the deduction from his pension account from February.09 to 29.4.09 The complainant had also sent letter to the O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 in the matter of arbitrarily deduction from his pension

    6
    account. But the O. Ps remained silent. As per the complainant due to the illegal deduction from his pension account by the O.P.No.1 he has under gone harassment and mental agony and as such the O. Ps are guilty of deficiency in service.

    As per the complainant the cause of action arose on 27.2.09, 14.3.09, 2.4.09, 13.4.09 and 29.4.09 when the O.Ps did not lition to his grievances.

    The complainant has approached this Forum with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to return the total deducted amount of Rs.43,000/- from his pension account and to deposit ;the same in his pension account, to pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony , harassment and deficiency in service , to pay Rs.10000/-towards litigation expenses , to direct the O.Ps not to deducted any amount from his pension account.

    The complaint petition is supported by affidavit and the complainant has filed xerox copies of some documents which are marked as Annexure-1 to Annexure-7

    The O.Ps have filed written version in which it has been averred that the complaint petition filed by the complainant is not legally maintainable. The case is barred by limitation and there is no cause of action to file this case. The O.Ps have admitted the facts stated in paragraph 1 of the complaint petition. As per the version of the O.Ps the third son of the complainant Sambhu Prasad Moharana availed a term loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Uco Bank ,Itamati Branch on 26.10,1999 and the complainant was the guarantor for the said Term loan. The complainant had also executed an undertaking that if his son does not repay the said loan dues with interest, the said loan dues shall be deducted from his pension account His son has not cleared the term loandues from his own source on 17.11 2001. The said term loan was converted to cash credit loan on the request of the borrower and the complainant. The bank converted his term loan limit of Rs.1,50,000/- to cash credit loan limit of Rs.1,50,000/- on 17.11.01. The

    6
    complainant's son executed the cash credit loan documents. The complainant has

    executed a deed of indemnity on the same day for this cash credit loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of the bank whereby he has agreed and undertaken on demand to pay all present and future liabilities and indebtness of his son to the bank. The cash credit limit of Rs.1,50,000/- was debited to the current account No.A1/122 of Sambhu Prasad Moharana on 17.11.01 and he has availed the said cash credit loan of Rs.1,50,000/- vide Cheque No. 289551 dt. 17.11.01 out of which he had paid Rs. 1,19,280/- on 17.11.01 for the clearance of the term loan dues. The cash credit loan was sanctioned to Sambhu Prasad Moharana on the guarantee of the complainant and he has executed a deed of indemnity for the said cash credit loan of Rs.1,50,000/- on 17.11.01. The Bank had sent Regd. Pleader's notice of demand on 10.8.07 and on 25,2.09 to the borrower and guarantor(complainant). The complainant took no steps for the repayment of loan dues. The borrower defaulted to pay the over due cash credit loan amount and the bank was compelled to deduct the over due loan amount from the complainant's pension account without initiating legal proceeding against him who is an aged one. The complainant never protested against the deduction of over due cash credit loan amount of his son Sambhu Prasad Moharana from his pension account rather the complainant as the guarantor has renewed the cash credit loan by executing balance confirmation letter dated 31.3.04 and dated 30.9.08 along with the borrower. The complainant had given a letter 13.4.09 to the bank for transfer of his pension account to the Bank of Boroda at Nayagarh . The complainant is the guarantor for the said cash credit loan and has executed a deed of indemnity making himself solely liable for the repayment of loan dues.

    As per the version of the O.Ps there is no deficiency on their part in deducting the loan amount from the pension account of the complainant and as such the case against them needs to be dismissed with cost.
    6

    The O.Ps have filed xerox copies of some documents which are marked as Annexure-A to Annexure -R/3 .

    On the pleadings of the parties , we take-up the issue of deficiency in service for adjudication.

    F I N D I N G S


    Section (2) (1) (g) of the C.P ACT defines “Deficiency” as under :-

    “Deficiency means any fault,imperfection,shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality,nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been

    undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of contract or otherwise in relation to any service ”.

    The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps as the O.Ps have deducted the cash credit loan installment amount from his pension account. The son of the complainant Sambhu Prasad Moharana had availed a term loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from UCO. Bank,Itamati Branch(O.P.No.1) on 26.10,1999 and at that time the complainant had given an undertaking that if his son does not repay the loan amount along with interest the loan amount may be deducted from his pension account. His son cleared the term loan and again availed cash credit loan of Rs.1,50.000/- from the O.P.No.1 on 17.11.2001. His son became defaulter and the O.Ps arbitrarily deducted Rs.3000/- on 27.2.09 , Rs.18000/- on 14.3.09 , Rs.3000/- on 2.4.09 ,Rs.14000/- on 29.4.09 and Rs.5000/- on 29.4.09 from his pension account bearing No.5541 for cash credit loan of his son.

    6

    The O.ps have averred that Sambhu prasad Moharana the son of the complainant had availed a term loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from O.P.No.1 on 26.11.99 and the complainant was guarantor for the said term loan . He had also executed an undertaking that if his son does not repay the said loan dues with interest, the said loan dues shall be deducted from his pension account. His son has not cleared the term loan dues from his own source on 17.11.01. His son had submitted one request letter to convert his term loan limit to cash credit loan limit and according by the bank converted his term loan limit Rs.1,50,000/- to cash credit loan limit of a Rs.1,50,000/- on 17.11.01. His son executed the cash credit loan document. The complainant has executed a deed of indemnity on 17.11.01 for the cash credit loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of the bank. whereby he has agreed and undertaken on demand to pay and discharge all present and future liability of his son to the Bank . The cash credit limit of Rs.1,50,000/-was debited to the current account No.A1/122 of Sambhu Prasad Moharan on 17.11.01 and he has availed the cash credit loan of Rs.1,50,000/- vide cheque No.2895151 dated 17.11.01 and out of the said cash credit loan he had paid 1,19,280/- on 17.11.01 to the Bank for clearance of term loan dues. When the son of the complainant became defaulter to pay the over due cash credit loan amount, the Bank was compelled to deduct the over due loan amount from the pension account of the complainant.

    Annexure-1 to Annexure-7 are filed by the complainant.

    Annexure -6 is the xerox copy of the undertaking for deduction of the term loan amount from the pension account of the complainant. The complainant had undertaken there in that if his son Sambhu Prasad Moharan does not repay the loan amount along with interest the loan amount shall be deducted from his pension account. The said undertaking was for the term loan of Rs.1,50,000/- sanctioned on 26.10.99.
    6
    Annexure-A to Annexure-R/3 are filed by the O.Ps.

    Annexure-C is the xerox copy of the undertaking dated 26.10.1999 by the complainant for deduction of the over due loan amount from his pension. The said undertaking is for the term loan sanctioned in favour of his son on 26.10.1999. The term loan was Rs.1,50,000/-.

    Annexure-D is the letter by the son of the complainant for transfer of the term loan to cash credit loan.

    Annexure-E to Annexure-E/2 is the loan application date 17.11.01 by the son of the complainant for cash credit loan .

    From the above annexures it is found that the term loan was converted to cash credit loan on the strength of the request letter of the son of the complainant.

    Annexure-G to Annexure-G/2 is the deed of indemnity by the complainant on 17.11.01 for cash credit loan.

    When the son of the complainant became defaulter to repay the cash credit loan amount, the O.Ps deducted the over due amount from the pension account of the complainant.

    The deed of indemnity vide Annexure-G to Annexure-G/2 under clause No.13 reads as under


    “I/we further agree that in respect of my/our liability hereunder the Bank shall have a lien on all securities belonging to me/us now or hereafter held by the Bank and all moneys now or hereafter standing to my/our credit with the Bank or any current or any other account whatsoever”.

    - 8 -
    The O.Ps have filed no document to show that the complainant had given any undertaking for the deduction of cash credit loan amount from his pension account.

    From the above said clause of the deed of indemnity it is clear that the Bank (O.P. No.1) is having a lien on the pension account of the complainant who is a guarantor for the cash credit loan of Rs. 1,50,000.

    The O.P. No. 1 instead of keeping the pension account vide S.B.A/C No. 5541 as lien has deducted the over due loan amount from the above said pension account of the complainant which is illegal.

    In the light of the aforesaid findings, we are of the opinion that the O.Ps are guilty of deficiency in service.

    Hence it is ordered.

    O R D E R

    The complainant's case is partly allowed on contest against the O.Ps. The opposite parties are directed not to deduct cash credit loan amount further from the pension account of the complainant. No order as to cost.

    [/B]

  6. #6
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default

    Complaint Case No.129/2009

    Date of Institution 28-4-2009

    Date of Decision 7-12-2009

    Smt. Prita Devi wife of Sh.Arjun singh Prop Sarswati Cloth House Main Bazar, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. resident of Village and Post Office Paddar, District Mandi, H.P.

    …Complainant
    V/s

    UCO Bank Joginder Nagar through its Branch Senior Manager Main Bazar, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.


    …..Opposite party
    For the complainant Sh. Abhishek Lakhanpal, Advocate

    For the opposite party Sh. H.S.Rangra, Advocate



    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 party. The complainant averred that she is the sole proprietor of Sarswati Cloth House. That at the instance of the opposite party, the complainant approached it for availing loan facility by opening cash credit limit to the tune of Rs,7,00,000/- in her name for the advancement of her business and the opposite party assured to provide the cash credit facility subject to her fulfilling certain formalities which she had completed . Thereafter, the opposite party asked the complainant to get an equitable mortgage qua her property situated in Mauja Katipari, paragana Dalaha, Tehsil Paddar executed in the name of the opposite party and pursuant to that she got the land mortgaged with the opposite party on 24-12-2008 by spending Rs.15,000 and the copies of jamabandi and report of patwari are Annexure C-1(a) and C-1 ( b). The complainant alleged that the opposite party started avoiding the complainant on one pretext or the other and then she served the opposite party with legal notice Annexure C-2 which was duly replied by it as Annexure C-3. Ultimately dissatisfied with the endeavours of the opposite party, the complainant approached State Bank of India for the grant of loan and spent another sum of Rs.15,000/- for completion of all formalities and the loan amount was released to her by the State Bank of India .The complainant alleged that the opposite party had acted in most unfair ,manner towards the complainant which tentamounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. .On these facts , the complainant has sought a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.30,000/- as expenses borne by her for release of the loan and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Apart from this Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses has also been claimed.

    2 The opposite party filed reply and resisted the complaint and denied the averments made in the complaint in toto. It has been contended that the complainant is not the proprietor of M/s Saraswati Cloth House whereas as per the affidavit filed at the time of submission of the application for taking loan facility from it , Sh.Arjun Singh son of Sh. Nanak Chand had been shown as proprietor of aforesaid concern and as such the complainant is not competent to maintain and file the complaint . It has further been contended that the complainant was assured by the opposite party to avail the cash credit limit facility on filing of requisite certificate/ documents and also on filing of the No dues certificate from the different banks / financial institutions of the locality which documents have not been filed by the complainant before it till date . It has further been contended that the complainant had availed loan facility from Punjab National Bank, Joginder Nagar under PMRY Scheme prior to the filing of application before the opposite party and an amount of Rs.77,254/- was still due to be paid by the complainant to PNB Joginder Nagar as per Annexure R-2 and in these circumstances, the complainant could not be provided demanded facility. It has been submitted that the opposite party had not avoided the complainant to provide with the loan facility. The opposite party had prayed for dismissal of the complaint .

    3. The complainant had filed rejoinder reiterating the contents of the complaint and denying those contrary to the complaint.

    4. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case . The grievance of the complainant for redressal by this Forum is that she applied for cash credit limit to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- to the opposite party and was asked to complete certain formalities and she had even mortgaged the land in the name of the opposite party after spending Rs.15,000/- but despite that the loan was not sanctioned to her on one pretext or the other which according to her is unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on its part. Further case of the complainant is that thereafter she had applied for loan to the State Bank of India and further spent Rs.15,000/- for completing the codal formalities for release of the loan amount and in this way she had suffered loss of Rs.30,000/- due to the act of the opposite party and is entitled to such expenses besides compensation and costs of complaint.

    5 On the other hand, the version of the opposite party is that as per the affidavit supplied by the complainant herself in compliance of the loan formalities , Sh.Arjun Singh son of Sh. Nanak Chand has been shown as proprietor of M/S Sarswati Cloth House , Joginder Nagar and that “No dues certificate” from the different banks / financial institutions of the locality had not been filed . Further version of the opposite party is that the complainant has obtained loan from the Punjab National Bank under PMRY scheme prior to filing of the application before the opposite party and a sum of Rs.77,254/- was still due to be paid to Punjab National Bank as per Annexure R-2 and as such loan was not granted to her.

    6. Now the first question which arises for determination by this Forum is as to whether the complainant has completed all the formalities for availing the loan facility from the opposite party as required . The opposite party had pressed into service the affidavit Annexure R-1 submitted by the complainant herself with the Bank at the time of applying for the loan alongwith the application . The perusal of the affidavit which is dated 5th December 2008 Annexure R-1 shows that the same has been sworn by the husband of the complainant Sh.Arjun Singh wherein he deposed that he is the sole proprietor / owner of M/S Sarswati Cloth House located at Joginder Nagar. . In these circumstances , the onus was upon the complainant to prove that she was the sole proprietor of M/S Sarswati Cloth House but no such document has seen the light of the day. The complainant has mentioned in the rejoinder that due to inadvertence , name of Sh.Arjun Singh was mentioned as proprietor of M/S Sarswati Cloth House whereas he is the proprietor of M/S Bhagwati Cloth House and when the same was pointed out , she immediately rectified the defect and submitted the affidavit/ declaration and had also relied upon the copy of undertaking submitted by her as Annexure C-4. However, the perusal of the record reveals that no such affidavit or declaration has been submitted by the complainant regarding her proprietorship of M/S Sarswati Cloth House and the perusal of the copy of undertaking Annexure C-4 depicts that nothing has been mentioned by the complainant therein that she is the sole proprietor of M/S Sarswati Cloth House and in fact the para No.1 of the declaration Annexure C-4 has been left Blank wherein the name of the sole proprietor of the business was to be mentioned . The complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence on record to show that she is sole proprietor of M/S Sarswati Cloth House. The other ground taken by the opposite party in refusing the loan to the complainant is that no objection/ no dues certificates from the Different Banks / Financial Institutions of the locality have not been filed by the complainant .The case of the complainant is that she had submitted the No Objection/ no dues certificate to the opposite party and produced copy of the same as Annexure C-5. However, the perusal of the same reflects that No dues certificate from Punjab National Bank as alleged by the opposite party does not find figure in the same . In the rejoinder ,the complainant has submitted that no dues certificate had been submitted which is annexure C-5 but had not denied the fact that some amount was payable by her to the Punjab National Bank Joginder Nagar as alleged by the opposite party. Since ,the complainant has already taken a loan from Punjab National Bank and as per Annexure R-2 a sum of Rs.77,254/- was outstanding against her and she had failed to produce the No dues certificate from Punjab National Bank, it cannot be said that the complainant had submitted no dues certificate from all the financial institutions of the locality as alleged by her . Therefore, in our opinion , the opposite party cannot be held liable for deficiency in service as the complainant had not completed all the formalities as required by the opposite party for granting loan facility . The complainant has mentioned in para No.4 of the complaint that she had to incur an expenditure of Rs.15,000/- by getting the equitable mortgage qua her property on 24-12-2008 in the name of the opposite party and on completing all the formalities as required by the opposite party but despite that the loan was denied to her. It is not understandable as to why the complainant got the property mortgaged in the name of opposite party when she had not completed all the formalities as required by the opposite party.

    The perusal of the Jamabnadi filed by the complainant which is annexure C-1(a) reveals that the property was mortgaged in the name of the opposite party on 24-12-2008 and when it came to the notice of opposite party that all the formalities had not been completed by the complainant, the opposite party had immediately got the entry regarding the mortgage of the property of the complainant deleted on 19-1-2009 within a period of one month. Therefore , the complainant cannot blame the opposite party for her own mistake. Nevertheless it is settled law that granting or refusing loan is at the sole discretion of the Banks based upon their judgment of various factors and the failure to provide financial assistance is not a deficiency in service. In M/S Special Machines Karnal vs Punjab National Bank 1(1991) CPJ-78( NC) the Hon’ble National Commission had held in para No.21 as under:-



    “………………………………………………………We have also held in quite a few cases that complaints by borrowers from Banks against failure to provide adequate financing facility to an industry or business cannot form the subject matter of adjudication under the Act since in the matter of grant or withholding of further advances and insisting on margin money etc. the Banks have to exercise their discretion and act in accordance with their best judgment after taking into account various relevant factors and hence mere failure to provide financial facility or assistance cannot be said to be constitute “deficiency in service” as defined in section 2(1)(g) of the Act. We see no reason to deviate from the aforesaid view which we have already taken in similar matters.”



    5. In the case titled Vimal Chander Grover vs Bank of India II(1996) CPJ-159(NC) the Hon’ble National Commission had held in para 16 as under:-

    “………………………………………………………

    ………………………………………………………

    This commission has held that complaints by borrowers from Banks against failure to provide adequate facilities to an industry or business cannot form the subject matter of adjudication under the Act since in the matter of grant or withholding of further advances and insisting on margin money etc. The Banks have to exercise their discretion and act in accordance with their best judgment after taking into account various relevant factors and hence mere failure to provide financial facility or assistance cannot be said to constitute deficiency in service as defined in section 2 (1) (g) of the Act.”





    6 Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission ,we have no hesitation to conclude that the opposite party is not guilty of any deficiency in service . Hence the complaint is dismissed with costs of Rs.2500/-.

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

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

  7. #7
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default

    Complaint No:171 of 2009
    Date of Institution:24.08.2009
    Date of Service:11.09.2009
    Date of Decision:08.12.2009
    Monga Sanitary Store, Gill Road, Moga through its proprietor Sunil Kumar son of Tarsem Lal, resident of Moga.
    …..Complainant.
    Versus
    The Manager, UCO Bank, G.T.Road, Moga.

    ….Opposite Party.
    Complaint Under Section 12 of the

    Consumer Protection Act, 1986.



    Present: Sh.Pardeep Bharti, Adv.counsel for the complainant.

    Sh.S.K.Dhir, Adv.counsel for the OP-Bank.
    Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President.

    Sh.J.S.Mallah, Member.

    (J.S.Chawla, President)

    M/s.Monga Sanitary Store, Gill Road, Moga through its proprietor Sunil Kumar son of Tarsem Lal has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against The Manager, UCO Bank, G.T.Road, Moga (herein-after referred to as ‘Bank’)-opposite party directing them to pay Rs.3 lacs on account of damages and Rs.50000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment or any other relief to which this Forum may deem fit be granted.

    2. Briefly stated, the complainant has dealing with the OP-Bank and they got loan of Rs.1 lac from the OP-Bank by mortgaging their property. That the OP-Bank got insured the said premises of the complainant alongwith goods lying therein to safeguard their interest as well as the interest of the OP-Bank. That in the month of September, 2008 the complainant also executed new agreement with the OP-Bank for fixed limit of Rs.3 lacs vide cash credit limit account no. 11245. That the OP-Bank had tie-up with the insurance companies and it was incumbent upon them to get insured the above said premises and sanitary goods lying therein against the amount advanced by the OP-Bank at the time of new loan agreement. However, the complainant was never allowed to deal with any insurance company directly in this regard. That on 23.4.2009 fire took place in the premises of the complainant and the sanitary goods worth Rs.3 lacs have been damaged/ burnt. That the OP-Bank has failed to discharge their duty and liability and also to give proper service to the complainant which resulted into loss to them. That again on 5.5.2009 after the occurrence of the above said fire incident, the OP-Bank had got insured the premises of the complainant. That the OP-Bank was requested number of times to admit the rightful claim of the complainant, but they finally refused to do so. Hence the present complaint.

    3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP-Bank, who appeared through Sh.S.K.Dhir Advocate and filed their written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and that there is no deficiency in service on their part; that the OP-Bank was not liable to pay the amount of Rs.3 lacs allegedly claimed by the complainant. As per terms and conditions no.6 of the ‘agreement of hypothecation of goods’ to secure cash credit limit, it was obligatory and incumbent upon the complainant to get insured the said sanitary goods against fire risk in the name and sole benefit of the OP-Bank and to submit the insurance policy and receipt of premium paid by them. In case of failure of the complainant in effecting the insurance and submitting the policy and receipt of premium, the OP-Bank though not bound to effect such insurance, can effect the same at the expenses of the complainant. In the agreement dated 16.9.2008 it was mentioned that the hypothecated goods shall be insured against fire risk by the borrower in some insurance office or offices approved by the bank and in the name and for the sole benefit of the bank for their full market value and the borrower will on demand deliver to the bank, policy and the receipt of premium paid, on such insurance endorsed and assigned with the full benefit thereof in favour of the bank. Clause 5 of the terms and conditions provides the offer of sanctioning of loan to the complainant on the condition that the stock/ assets/ premises will be insured against all usual risk under bank’s clause till the loan limit is outstanding and its charges will be borne by you. Thus, it was the duty of the complainant itself to have insured the sanitary goods and the OP-Bank was not responsible for the same. The alleged loss, if any, was due to their own negligence. On merits, the OP-Bank took up the same and similar plea as taken up by them in preliminary objections. All other allegations made in the complaint were specifically denied being incorrect. Hence it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous and the same be dismissed with costs.

    4. In order to prove their case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.A1 of Sunil Kumar proprietor, copy of ledger account Ex.A2, copy of letter Ex.A3, copy of DDR Ex.A4, copy of legal notice Ex.A5, copy of postal receipt Ex.A6, copy of passbook Ex.A7, copy of statement of account Ex.A8, photographs Ex.A9 and Ex.A10 and closed their evidence.

    5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant the OP-Bank tendered affidavit Ex.R1 Sh.A.P.Bansal, Branch Manager, postal receipt Ex.R2, acknowledgement Ex.R3, reply of notice Ex.R4, copy of agreement Ex.R5, copy of sanction letter Ex.R6, copy of letter Ex.R7, copy of statement of account Ex.R8 and closed their evidence.

    6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Pardeep Bharti ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.S.K.Dhir ld. counsel for the OP-Bank and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.

    7. Sh.Pardeep Bharti ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the OP-Bank has committed deficiency in service by not allowing the legal and valid claim of compensation of Rs.3 lacs to the complainant because it was their duty to have insured the premises and goods of the complainant firm well in time. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has no merit. Admittedly, the complainant took cash credit limit from the OP-Bank by hypothecating their premises and goods. As per terms and conditions no.6 of the agreement of hypothecation of goods, it was obligatory and incumbent upon the complainant to have got insured the sanitary goods against risk of fire in the name and sole benefit of the OP-Bank. Clause 6 of the agreement of hypothecation of goods reads as follows:-

    “That the hypothecated goods shall be insured against Fire risk by the borrowers in some Insurance office or offices approved by the Bank and in the name and for the sole benefit of the Bank for their full market value and that the borrowers will on demand deliver to the Bank all policies for and the receipts for premia paid on such insurance endorsed and assigned with the full benefit thereof in favour of the Bank. Should the borrowers fail to show insure or fail to deliver the policies or receipts for premia duly endorsed as aforesaid three days after demand the Bank shall be at liberty, though not bound to effect such insurance at the expenses of the borrowers. The borrowers further agree that the Bank shall be at liberty at any time at its discretion (without being bound to do so) to insure the securities for their full market value against riot and civil commotion risk or any other type of insurance risk at the expenses of the borrowers with any insurance company.”

    Thus, the aforesaid clause 6 of the agreement of hypothecation executed by the complainant firm at the time of taking cash credit facility shows that it was obligatory on the part of the complainant to have got insured their premises and goods against fire and it was not the duty of the OP-Bank to have done so. It is immaterial if earlier or after the fire incident, the OP-Bank got insured their goods and for this gratuitous act, if any, performed by the OP-Bank on behalf of the complainant’s firm does not make them liable to pay the alleged compensation to them. On this point, the ruling 2005(3) CLT page 44 titled as Baljit Singh Vs. State Bank of Patiala of our own Hon’ble State Commission, Pb. Chandigarh cited by ld.counsel for the OP-Bank is quite applicable to the facts of the present case and is to the following effect:-

    “In other words, the sine qua non in such cases is the terms of the loan agreement. Clause X of the agreement, which has been reproduced above, nowhere makes it obligatory on the Bank to get the vehicle insured but it is only an enabling provision that it may get the insurance done. The primary duty is of the borrower. The vehicle was not required by the Bank to be insured against third party risk. That obligation was independently on the borrower. If the borrower was driving the vehicle or was allowing the vehicle to be driven without there being third party insurance it is the borrower who is to be blamed and nobody else. In the present case, the earlier insurance lapsed on 20.3.1992 where the accident took place on 25.5.1992. After the lapse of the policy on 20.3.1992 the borrower should have checked with the Bank whether the insurance has been done or not and if the Bank had not got the insurance done it was the duty of the borrower i.e. the complainant to get the vehicle insured. We feel ourselves bound by the judgement of Punjab and Haryana High Court (supra).”

    8. Similar view was held by Hon’ble National Commision, New Delhi in 2005(3) CLT page 409 titled as State Bank of India Branch, Bellary Vs. B.Nagaraj since deceased by his Legal representatives Smt.Pushpavathi and others. On this point, ld.counsel for the OP-Bank also cited ruling 2004(1) ISJ (Banking) page 146 titled as Haryana Pesticides Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the complainant has failed to cite or produce any authority contrary to the aforesaid authorities cited by ld.counsel for the OP-Bank. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we, therefore, hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency or negligence on the part of the OP-Bank in not getting their premises and sanitary goods insured as alleged.

    9. To support their contentions, the OP-Bank has produced affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.A.P.Bansal, Branch Manager, postal receipt Ex.R2, acknowledgement Ex.R3, reply of notice Ex.R4, copy of agreement Ex.R5, copy of sanction letter Ex.R6, copy of letter Ex.R7, copy of statement of account Ex.R8 and we believe and rely upon the same. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit Ex.A1 Sunil Kumar proprietor of the complainant firm and documents Ex.A2 to Ex.A10 and we discard the same.

    10. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.

    11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

  8. #8
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default UCO Bank

    C.C.CASE NO. 73 OF 2009
    Sri Vijayb Khaitan,
    ….. Complainant
    -VS-
    The Assistant General Manager,
    Education Loan Department, UCO Bank
    … Opp.Party
    ORDER NO. 16 DATE 14.01.2010
    The record is taken up for passing exparte order. The op no carries on business with in the jurisdiction of this Forum.

    The case of the complainant in brief is as follows :

    The complainant Bijoy Khaitan has filed this case against the Ops namely Op no.1 Assistant General Manager, Education Loan Dept. , U.Co.Bank, Kolkata Main Branch and Op no.2 U.Co.Bank represented by Branch Manager, Rishra Branch, P.O. & P.S.Rishra , Dist.Hooghly alleging that the complainant availed education loan from the Op no.1 for an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- and that loan would be repayable in 60 monthly instalments amounting to Rs.4167/- , per month commencing from one year after completion of study or one month from the date of securing employment whichever would be earlier. Subsequently, the loan amount was enhanced upto Rs.2.0 lacs and the instalment of repayment of loan were also enhanced @ Rs.4700/- p.m. repayable by 60 monthly instalments . At the time of taking loan the complainant had to deposit the Life Insurance Policy with the sum assured Rs.2.0 lacs and equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds of the property of the father of the complainant. An agreement was also executed to that regard and on 17.7.08 the father of the complainant informed the Opposite party in writing about the final repayment of loan and requested them for releasing the Collateral securities. The Opposite party no.1 by his letter no.KMO : AGM :273: 2008-09 dated 10.11.2008 acknowledged the repayment of 60 instalments and claimed an additional amount of Rs.l,55,801/- on the ground that such amount was due as on 31.10.08 from the complainant towards interest charged during the moratorium period. The Opposite party no.1 has claimed that amount illegally , arbitrarily beyond the terms of his stipulation and the complainant is not responsible for making the payment of that amount. The complainant also sent an Advocate’s letter on 5.1.2009 denying the claim . By filing the instant case he has prayed for an order directing the OP no.1 to return the collateral securities namely Life insurance policy and the title deed , compensation Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-.

    The Opposite parties inspite of receipt of the notices do not turn up to contest this case. Thus the case is heard exparte against the Ops.

    The letter issued by the Chief Manager, (Adv) of U.Co. Bank dated 12.6.2003 transpires that the Chief Manager, (Adv) intimated Mr.Bijoy Khaitan as to sanction of Education Loan to the tune of 1.80 lacs vide their sanction letter no. ADV/S/98/LM dated 23.10.98 with intimation that his loan was due for repayment from July 2003 fixing monthly instalment of Rs.4630/-.The letter dated 23.10.08 issued with reference no.ADV/S/98/1M addressed to Mr.Bijoy Khaitan divulges that the amount of loan was Rs.1.80 lacs, rate of interest was 13.77% with quarterly interest to be repayed in 60 monthly instalments @ Rs.4167/- p.m. Commencing from one year after completion of studies or one month from the date of getting employment whichever is earlier with other conditions as laid down in the abovecited letter issued by U.Co.Bank, Calcutta Main Branch.

    The letter KMO.AGM.273:2008-2009 issued by the Assistant General Manager, Kolkata Main Branch of U.Co.Bank transpires “........however, at the request of you, the limit was further enhanced to Rs.2.0 lacs on 9.4.1999 and accordingly, the EMI was rescheduled @ Rs.4700/- p.m. with effect from 9.7.2003. From our record it appears that you have paid as per sanction advice the entire 60 instalments . The last instalment was paid on 11.7.2008 .However, while going through your account as well as balance outstanding in the account of Rs.l,55,801/- , it appears that the interest charged during the moratorium period was not included /considered while fixing /refixing the EMI and also inadvertently it was not communicated to you also.”

    Perused the letter given by Mr.Prodyut Kumar Roychowdhury, an Advocate to the Assistant General Manager which reflects that the concerned Advocate had requested the Assistant General Manager, Education Loan Dept., U.Co.Bank, Kolkata main branch for releasing the Life Insurance policy amounting to Rs.2.0 lacs .

    It is the case of the complainant that at the time of execution the agreement or sanction of the loan of Rs.1.80 lacs and subsequently by modification Rs.2.0 lacs the moratorium was not stated to the complainant. He had the option if this amount was then informed for making payment , for receipt of the loan or not. Being satisfied the rate of EMI the complainant obtained the Education loan. Subsequently, the U.Co. Bank according to the complainant cannot change the terms and conditions.

    We find much substance in the submission of the learned Lawyer of the complainant and on perusal of the documents of the Opposite party filed by the complainant (cited above) we do not find any averment as to realization of Rs.1,55,801/- an interest charged during the moratorium period. Accordingly, the OP cannot charge Rs.1,55,801/- subsequently from the complainant. The claiming of Rs.1,55,801/- as interest during moratorium period without prior information to the complainant at the time of execution of the agreement /sanction of the loan is obviously deficiency in service. And in our considered view the OP Bank cannot subsequently impose any other terms and conditions or rate of interest which was not disclosed at the time of sanction of the Education loan. Admitted fact that the complainant has paid 60 instalments as per agreement.

    Considering the facts and circumstances of this case we are not inclined to grant any compensation to the complainant

    Thus the case succeeds.

    Hence ordered

    That the instant case is allowed against the Ops exparte on cost of Rs.1000/-. The OP no.l is directed to release the Collateral securities being the Life insurance policy of the complainant amounting to Rs.2.0 lacs and the Title deed of the father of the complainant which kept as security by the OP no.l within 40 days from the date of this order, failing which the amount of cost will accrue interest at the rate of 9% per annum and the complainant may enforce the order of releasing the above cited life insurance policy and the Title deed through recourse of law. We passed no order against op no 2.

    Hand over a copy of this order to the parties free of cost.

    Send a copy of this order to the OP no.1 for compliance.

    The case is disposed of beyond the statutory period.

  9. #9
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default UCO Bank

    C.C. 153 OF 2008

    Sri Arun Kumar Bose

    35, Lawrance Street,

    Building D-4, flat C,

    P.O. & P.S. Uttarpara,

    Dist.Hooghly … Complainant

    -Vs-

    Sri Kanhiyalal Baid

    Director,

    M/s Sanchiyya Enterprises

    &Construction (P) Ltd.

    90, La wrence Street,

    P.O. & P.S.Uttarpara,

    Dist.Hooghly … Opp.Party

    Present : D.K.Basu …. President

    S.Basu …. Member

    R.Roychowdhury

    Malakar … Member

    Date of delivery of judgement – 5.1.2010
    The fact of the case of the complainant in brief is as follows :

    The complainant Arun Kumar Bose has filed this case against Sri Kanhiyalal Baid , Director, M/s Sanchiyya Enterprises and Constructions (P) Ltd. alleging that the complainant being an officer of U.Co. Bank wanted to purchase flat being no.201 and 202 on the 2nd floor of the holding as stated in the schedule of the residential flats in the complaint from the O.P. who was the Director of M/s Sanchiyya Enterprises and Construction Pvt. Ltd. paid Rs.25,000/- as Earnest money on 23.11.2005 by a cheque against the total consideration of Rs.14,58,000/- (Rupees nine hundred per sq.ft.) against a proper receipt given by the OP. He also wanted to purchase the said flat by taking loan from his Bank for which he requested the OP to supply Xerox copies of all documents relating to property in question. The OP took more than six months to supply all documents relating to the said flats and on 15.12.2007 a draft copy of sale agreement was handed over to him by the OP. Inspite of several requests the OP did not execute the sale agreement. Lastly, the OP had been canvassing in the locality that he would not sell the said flat to the complainant nor he refund Rs.25,000/- to him. On 26.9.2008 the complainant sent an Advocate’s letter demanding Rs.25,000/- with interest. As the Op has not refunded the said amount, by filing this case he has prayed for refund the earnest money of Rs.25,000/- with interest from 23.11.2005 till the date of payment, Rs.5000/- as compensation, Rs.3000/- as cost and other reliefs.

    The Op by filing a written version has contested this case whereon he has denied the material averment of the complaint stating that this case is barred by limitation. He has further stated in his written version that it is true that the complainant deposited Rs.25,000/- only as booking money for purchasing the flat as alleged and he supplied all the relevant papers and documents of the flat to the complainant . He also prepared an agreement for sale and handed over to the complainant . The OP constructed the flats for selling to the intending purchasers and the complainant intentionally refused to purchase the said flat without any bona fide reason and demanded Booking money by sending letter through registered post. The complainant did not have any discussion with the Op as to return of money and the OP has no deficiency in service.
    In view of the above facts the following points can be taken into consideration for proper adjudication.
    1) Whether the complainant paid Rs.25,000/- to the OP as booking fee ?

    2) Whether the Op has any deficiency in service on his part ?

    3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

    FINDINGS WITH REASONS:

    All these points are taken together for the sake of convenience and also for the purpose of avoiding needless repetitions.
    It is settled principle that the admitted fact need not be proved.
    It is admitted fact that the complainant paid Rs.25,000/- to the OP on 23.11.2005 who also issued a receipt to that effect (Xerox copy is annexed).
    It is the case of the complainant that he wanted to purchase the flat mentioned in the schedule of the complaint from the Op on consideration money of Rs.14,58,000/-. It is also the case of the complainant that he wanted to purchase the flats from the OP by obtaining loan from the U.Co.Bank for which he had to file the relevant papers to the Bank. According to the complaint the Op handed over the draft of agreement on 15.12.2007.

    The case has been filed on 11.11.2008 as the draft deed of agreement was handed over the complainant on 15.12.2007, the case does not hit U/s 24A of this Act.

    The complainant has filed a Xerox copy of document showing “list of Xerox copies obtained for purchase of the flat” . These documents does not reflect whether the Bank received the documents for granting loan in favour of the complainant or the complainant received those papers from the Op. No document from the Bank has been filed by the complainant showing that he actually obtained loan from the Bank for purchasing the flat.

    We also see eye to eye with the learned lawyer of the OP that the complainant was not interested to purchase the flats as he has not filed any document showing that he obtained loan from the said Bank for purchasing the flats.
    Neither party has filed any document /agreement showing that the deposited money will be forfeited if the flat is not obtained by the intending purchaser. It is admitted fact that the complainant paid Rs.25,000/- to the Op which by filing the instant case wanted to be refunded .

    The learned lawyer of the complainant has referring a Ruling (2009) 3 WBLR (CPJ) 847 whereon it has been stated “service – Housing construction – House booked but construction delayed – refund claimed – delay in claim of refund – entitled to get refund – interest allowed at 10%”.
    Perused the above cited ruling which in our opinion that, that case is not identical to this case. In the instant case no delay is caused to construct the house. But in the instant case the complainant did not want subsequently to purchase the said flat. As, it is admitted fact that the OP received Rs.25,000/- from the complainant , we find no ground to pass an order not to refund the same.

    In view of the above facts and circumstance of this case we are not inclined to grant any compensation to the complainant who fails to substantiate that he actually wanted to purchase the said flats.

    In view of the above aspect we are of opinion that, the case succeeds in part.
    Hence Ordered
    That the instant case is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.1000/-.

    The OP is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to the complainant with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of payment to the OP i.e. (23.11.2005) till this day i.e. (5.1.2010) within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the amount of Rs.25,000/- plus above cited interest plus cost of Rs.1000/- , all these will accrue interest @ 8% per annum from the date of this order till the payment of entire amount to the complainant.
    Hand over a copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
    The case is disposed of beyond the statutory period as the post of President remained vacant for a considerable period.
    Dictated and corrected by me

  10. #10
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default UCO Bank

    Consumer Complaint No: 170/2003

    Date of presentation: 10.12.2003

    Date of decision: 22/01/2010.


    Sh. Nain Singh, S/o Sh. Inrru Ram,

    R/o Village Bhatwar, Tehsil Shillai,

    District Sirmour, H.P.

    … Complainant.

    Versus
    1. General Insurance Corporation of India,

    C/o Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. L-41, 1st Floor,

    Cannaught Circles, New Delhi-110001.



    2. U.C.O. Bank,

    Through Branch Manager, Shillai Branch Shillai,

    Tehsil Shillai , District Sirmour H.P.



    3. State of Himachal Pradesh,

    Through its Secretary Agriculture, H.P. Secretariat Shimla.

    …Opposite Parties.

    For the complainant: Mr. N.K. Tomar, Advocate.

    For the Opposite PartyNo.1: Ms. Rashmi Pandey, vice

    Mr. V.R. Chauhan, Advocate.

    For the Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. A.S. Shah, Advocate.

    For the Opposite Party No. 3: Mr. Sanjay Pandit, ADA.


    O R D E R:
    Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- This instant complaint, has been filed by Shri Nain Singh, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that, he, is agriculturist and is having agricultural land measuring 40 bighas situated in Mauza Kando Bhatnol, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P. He further avers that the government of H.P. implemented National Agriculture Insurance Scheme, for the season 1999-2000 vide letter No. Agr. H(8-P)F (10)-7/2 01 of the Government of India letter No.13011/15/99-Credit-II dated 1st July, 1999 vide which all the banks in Himachal Pradesh were directed to insure the crops of the agriculturist. Consequently, the OP No.2 started the insurance of the crops of the farmers/agriculturist and for that purpose Agriculture Development Officer, Shillai Block, distributed the requisite forms to the complainant and other agriculturists, for, insurance of the crops for kharif 2002 for the crops of maize and paddy and asked to deposit the form with the OP No.2 along with requisite premium. The complainant further proceeded to aver that the form of the insurance of maize and paddy crops was filled and certified by the Patwari and Agriculture Development Officer, Shillai and after completion was submitted with the OP No.2, alongwith requisite insurance premium of Rs.1,017/- for the insurance of maize and paddy crops for kharif season 2002. As such, the maize crop to the tune of Rs.8,224/- and paddy crops to the tune of Rs.6,296/- was insured. It is averred that owing to poor rainfall in the season of kharif 2002, the complainant had faced draught situation as a result of which the maize and paddy crop was effected badly, hence, the matter was reported to the concerned authority who reported the matter to the government of H.P. regarding draught and consequent loss to the crops, but the OPs despite various intimations neither visited the spot nor made good the loss.

    Hence, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the act of the OPs, the complainant avers that, there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

    2. The OP No.1-Company, in its written version, to the complaint, raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint, and locus standi of the complainant to file and maintain the instant complaint. On merits, the OP No.1 contend that the area was not notified by the State government nor any survey/experiments in compliance of R,K,B.Y scheme where-under the complainant’s crop was insured were conducted. It is further contended that the State government had failed to discharge its responsibility and role assigned under R.K.B.Y Scheme. The risk of the complainant was not covered under the policy as there was not proof regarding sowing or damage to the crop. The OP No.2-Bank in its reply admitted the receipt of premium from the complainant and its dispatch to GIC of India, 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. It is pertinent to mention that this complaint was earlier allowed by this Forum vide order dated 06.12.2006. However, on an appeal at the instance of the OP No.1-Company, the order rendered by this Forum was slightly modified by the Hon’ble HP State Consumer Commission, Shimla, vide its order dated 05.03.2008. However, the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in Revision Petition No.2393-2394 of 2008 in First Appeal Nos. 72 & 74 of 2007, set aside the orders rendered by this Forum and the Hon’ble HP State Consumer Commission, and directed to ender the order on merits after carefully going through the terms and conditions of the scheme of National Agriculture Insurance Scheme and Guidelines issued in that regard.

    4. On receipt of the file, opportunity was afforded to the parties to lead evidence. However, the learned counsel for the parties stated at bar that the evidence already on record, be read in evidence and no fresh evidence is intended to be file. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and, have, also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

    5. As per the Scheme so promulgated by the OP No.1-Company, it, is, clear that the Scheme envisages compensation for the yield differential between ‘threshold level’ as arrived at by a Committee envisaged under the Scheme, and the actual yield levels on an ‘area approach’. Hence, as per the Scheme so promulgated by the OP, it is not only clear rather, obvious that mere declaration of area affected by drought would not make the insured eligible for any compensation for the simple reason, that, the actual area-wise yield levels from the cropping season, and ‘threshold yield’ declared by the State Government is the basis, and the difference between the two, is, really indemnifiable.

    6. Para 13 of the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme provides that if the Actual Yield (AY) per hectare of the insured crop for the defined area {on the basis of requisite number of Crop Cutting Experiments (CCES)} in the insured season, fall short of the specified ‘Threshold Yield’ (TY), all the insured farmers growing that crop in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in their yield. However, on going through the record the complainant has not been able to place on record any material or documentary evidence disclosing the fact that he had suffered shortfall in his yield. Hence, in the absence of cogent, convincing and apposite evidence having been placed on record by the complainant, we are not inclined to accept the allegation of the complainant that merely owing to poor rainfall and draught in the area, he is entitled to be compensated by the OPs, for, loss to the insured crops of maize and paddy.

    7. For the foregoing reasons, we find no force in this complaint and it being without any merit, is, liable to be dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own cots. 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.

  11. #11
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default

    Consumer Complaint No: 171/2003

    Date of presentation: 10.12.2003

    Date of decision: 22/01/2010.

    Sh. Nain Singh, S/o Sh. Inrru Ram,

    R/o Village Bhatwar, Tehsil Shillai,

    District Sirmour, H.P.
    … Complainant.

    Versus

    1. General Insurance Corporation of India,

    C/o Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. L-41, 1st Floor,

    Cannaught Circles, New Delhi-110001.



    2. U.C.O. Bank,

    Through Branch Manager, Shillai Branch Shillai,

    Tehsil Shillai , District Sirmour H.P.



    3. State of Himachal Pradesh,

    Through its Secretary Agriculture, H.P. Secretariat Shimla.



    …Opposite Parties.





    For the complainant: Mr. N.K. Tomar, Advocate.

    For the Opposite PartyNo.1: Ms. Rashmi Pandey, Advocate,vice

    Mr. V.R. Chauhan, Advocate.

    For the Opposite PartyNo. 2: Mr. A.S. Shah, Advocate.

    For the Opposite PartyNo. 3: Mr. Sanjay Pandit, ADA.



    O R D E R:



    Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- This instant complaint, has been filed by Shri Nain Singh, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that, he, is agriculturist and is having agricultural land measuring 30 bighas situated in Mauza Koti Uttarau, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P. He further avers that the government of H.P. implemented National Agriculture Insurance Scheme, for the season 1999-2000 vide letter No. Agr. H(8-P)F (10)-7/2 01 of the Government of India letter No.13011/15/99-Credit-II dated 1st July, 1999 vide which all the banks in Himachal Pradesh were directed to insure the crops of the agriculturist. Consequently, the OP No.2 started the insurance of the crops of the farmers/agriculturist and for that purpose Agriculture Development Officer, Shillai Block, distributed the requisite forms to the complainant and other agriculturists, for, insurance of the crops for kharif 2002 for the crops of maize and paddy and asked to deposit the form with the OP No.2 along with requisite premium. The complainant further proceeded to aver that the form of the insurance of maize and paddy crops was filled and certified by the Patwari and Agriculture Development Officer, Shillai and after completion was submitted with the OP No.2, alongwith requisite insurance premium of Rs.827/- for the insurance of maize crop for kharif season 2002. As such, the maize crop to the tune of Rs.8,224/- was insured. It is averred that owing to poor rainfall in the season of kharif 2002, the complainant had faced draught situation as a result of which the maize and paddy crop was effected badly, hence, the matter was reported to the concerned authority who reported the matter to the government of H.P. regarding draught and consequent loss to the crop, but the OPs despite various intimations neither visited the spot nor made good the loss. Hence, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the act of the OPs, the complainant avers that, there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

    2. The OP No.1-Company, in its written version, to the complaint, raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint, and locus standi of the complainant to file and maintain the instant complaint. On merits, the OP No.1 contend that the area was not notified by the State government nor any survey/experiments in compliance of R,K,B.Y scheme where-under the complainant’s crop was insured were conducted. It is further contended that the State government had failed to discharge its responsibility and role assigned under R.K.B.Y Scheme. The risk of the complainant was not covered under the policy as there was not proof regarding sowing or damage to the crop. The OP No.2-Bank in its reply admitted the receipt of premium from the complainant and its dispatch to GIC of India, 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. It is pertinent to mention that this complaint was earlier allowed by this Forum vide order dated 06.12.2006. However, on an appeal at the instance of the OP No.1-Company, the order rendered by this Forum was slightly modified by the Hon’ble HP State Consumer Commission, Shimla, vide its order dated 05.03.2008. However, the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in Revision Petition No.2393-2394 of 2008 in First Appeal Nos. 72 & 74 of 2007, set aside the orders rendered by this Forum and the Hon’ble HP State Consumer Commission, and directed to ender the order on merits after carefully going through the terms and conditions of the scheme of National Agriculture Insurance Scheme and Guidelines issued in that regard.

    4. On receipt of the file, opportunity was afforded to the parties to lead evidence. However, the learned counsel for the parties stated at bar that the evidence already on record, be read in evidence and no fresh evidence is intended to be file. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and, have, also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

    5. As per the Scheme so promulgated by the OP No.1-Company, it, is, clear that the Scheme envisages compensation for the yield differential between ‘threshold level’ as arrived at by a Committee envisaged under the Scheme, and the actual yield levels on an ‘area approach’. Hence, as per the Scheme so promulgated by the OP, it is not only clear rather, obvious that mere declaration of area affected by drought would not make the insured eligible for any compensation for the simple reason, that, the actual area-wise yield levels from the cropping season, and ‘threshold yield’ declared by the State Government is the basis, and the difference between the two, is, really indemnifiable.

    6. Para 13 of the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme provides that if the Actual Yield (AY) per hectare of the insured crop for the defined area {on the basis of requisite number of Crop Cutting Experiments (CCES)} in the insured season, fall short of the specified ‘Threshold Yield’ (TY), all the insured farmers growing that crop in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in their yield. However, on going through the record the complainant has not been able to place on record any material or documentary evidence disclosing the fact that he had suffered shortfall in his yield. Hence, in the absence of cogent, convincing and apposite evidence having been placed on record by the complainant, we are not inclined to accept the allegation of the complainant that merely owing to poor rainfall and draught in the area, he is entitled to be compensated by the OPs, for, loss to the insured crop of maize.

    7. For the foregoing reasons, we find no force in this complaint and it being without any merit, is, liable to be dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own cots. 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.

  12. #12
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default UCO Bank

    Consumer Complaint No: 202/2007

    Date of presentation: 10.07.2007

    Date of decision: 06.01.2010

    Sardari Lal S/O Shri Chajju Ram,

    C/O Kanta Niwas, Near Apple Rose,

    Hotel Kachi Ghati, Shimla-10, H.P.

    … Complainant.
    Versus
    1. UCO Bank,

    10, Brabourne Road,

    Calcutta (W.B.).

    2. UCO Bank,

    Regional Office, Near Him Land Hotel,

    Shimla,H.P.

    3. UCO Bank,

    Branch Ram Bazar,

    Shimla-1, through its Sr. Manager.

    …Opposite Parties

    For the complainant: Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate.

    For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Vijay Arora, Advocate vice

    Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate.

    O R DER

    Dr. Karuna Machhan, Member:-This complaint has been filed by Shri Sardari Lal, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the allegation of the complainant, as alleged in paragraph 1 of the complaint that, he is having saving bank account No.20991, with the OP No.3. It is further the allegation of the complainant that some where in the month of December, 2006, one of his colleague in inadvertence issued the cheques as detailed in paragraph 3 of the complaint, he immediately requested the OP No.3, to, stop payment of said cheques. It is further the allegation that, on, 10.01.2007, the OP No.3 issued a letter to him, that some cheques with false signature are presented for clearing and also requested to close the account within one month, but the OP No.3, on, 12.01.2007 stopped the payment of other cheques against the account of the complainant for a sum of Rs.900/- and Rs.150/- and thereafter, the OP No.3, honoured the transaction and also make payment of cheque No.768935 dated 08.02.2007 and wrongly stopped the payment of the cueque No.702389 for Rs.4,118/- presented by ICICI Bank, on, 05.06.2007. The complainant further alleged that for the stoppage of the payment of cheque No.702389 dated 05.06.2007, the same has been dishonoured by the OP No.3, for which the ICICI Bank has imposed a penalty of Rs.450/- due to the fault of the OP No.3.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 his favour.

    2. The OP-Bank, in its written version, to the complaint, denied that the colleague of complainant Shri Ramesh Kumar has wrongly issued the cheques bearing Nos. 702397, 702398, 702399 and 702400 of dated 07.01.2007, 07.02.2007, 07.03.2007 and 07.04.2007 respectively each amounting to Rs.725/-. However, it is contended that when the cheque bearing No.702397 dated 01.01.2007 amounting to Rs.725/- was presented before the OP No.3, for encashment through clearing and on verification of signature, it was revealed that the signature does not bear the original, hence, returned with remarks ‘forged signature’ and the complainant was accordingly informed. It is denied that the payment of cheque No.702389 for Rs.4,118/- was wrongly stopped. They further contend that, soon after transaction and also misuse of the cheque book, the OP-Bank had immediately passed instructions to cease the account of the complainant and further stopped the payment or any kind of transaction in his account as of their apprehension of misuse of the cheque. 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 dispute interse the parties are very narrow. The main dispute relates to non-encashment of cheque bearing No.702398, for Rs.4,118/-. The OP-Bank, is, defending their action on the strength that, since the cheque book issued in the name of the complainant was being misused by one Shri Ramesh Kumar, and when this fact came to their notice, they informed the complainant vide Annexure R-5, and as a precaution measure, they immediately passed instructions to cease the account of the complainant. However, the case of the complainant, is, that the OP-Bank was categorically requested not to clear the cheques bearing No.702397, 702398, 702399 and 7024400, but their action in wrongly stopping the payment of cheque bearing No.72389 for Rs.4,118/- and further imposing him penalty of Rs.50/- was illegal and arbitrary.

    6. After going through the record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the action of the OP-Bank, in not clearing the payment of cheque bearing No.702389 for Rs.4,118/- and also imposing penalty of Rs.50/-, was not legal and justified, especially, when the OP-Bank, was categorically informed by the complainant vide Annexure R-6, to stop the payment of particulars cheques, in which the disputed cheque was not detailed. Therefore, in our view, the action of the OP-Bank, in passing instructions to cease the account of the complainant and further stopped the payment of any kind of transaction of misuse of cheque, as contended in paragraph 5 of the reply, was not legal and valid, rather, it clearly shows their ineptitude, while dealing with the complainant. Therefore, we have no hesitation in coming to a definite conclusion that this action of the OP-Bank, was not only a deficiency in service, rather, it shows their indulgence in an unfair trade practice. As such, the action of the OP-Bank, in not clearing the cheque bearing No.702389 for Rs.4,118/- and further imposing penalty of Rs.50/- was illegal and unjustified, hence, they are liable to make good the loss of the complainant in terms of paying him suitable compensation.

    8. Resultantly, we allow the complaint and direct the OP-Bank to refund him the amount of Rs.50/- so deducted from his saving bank account and also pay him damages of Rs.5,000/- for causing him, pain, humiliation and inconvenience, besides litigation cots of Rs.1000/-. These payments shall be made to the complainant by the OP-Bank, within a period of forty five days after the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 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.

  13. #13
    patheja1125 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2

    Default breech of my account details due to personal ego by Manager- IQBAL SINGH

    I have a s/a account (19630110023631) in UCO bank branch (1963), paschim vihar branch,delhi i am trying to call customer care but no one is picking the phone nor i am getting any sort of help from the bank branch itself so i am requesting to inform me why the amount of rs 9500/- is shown as Lien Balance and one can do that unless and until without contacting me, why this happned if such is the case how my balance is safe if sumone or sumbody can do it easily sitting in his hometown and blocking my money, what the security of ur bank, i would request to enquire into this and remove the lien imposed on the transfer that was added around a week back into my account from citibank online neft transfer. please clear thsi issue at the earliest and protect and remove this Lien balance impossed on 9500/- in my account. No matter how the money comes to my account, whos has got the power to disclose my personal account details and lock my balance....
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails UCO Bank-ulien.jpg  

  14. #14
    patheja1125 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2

    Default breech of my account details due to personal ego by Managarial Staff -Mr. IQBAL SINGH

    I have a s/a account (19630110023631) in UCO bank branch (1963), paschim vihar branch,delhi i am trying to call customer care

    and even emailed this to customer care but no response till date what so ever nor i am getting any sort of help from the bank

    branch itself so i am requesting you to inform me why the amount of rs 9500/- is shown as Lien Balance and how one can do

    that unless and until without contacting me, why this happned if such is the case how my balance is safe if sumone or sumbody

    can do it easily sitting in his hometown (TN) and blocking my money, what is the security of the UCO bank, i would request to

    enquire into this and remove the lien imposed on the transfer that was added around a week back into my account from citibank

    online neft transfer. please clear this issue at the earliest and protect and remove this Lien balance impossed on 9500/- in

    my account. No matter how the money comes to my account, whos has got the power to disclose my personal account details and

    lock my balance....infact i have an FD too which i am willing to withdraw and shut down my account with the UCO BANK, i have

    account in other banks too but no complaint till now but since i opened UCO everynow and then my details are disclosed to my

    customers or sellers am dealing with just upon calling to bank....

+ Submit Your Complaint

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •