Haryana

StateCommission

RP/2/2019

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANGREJ SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

INDERJIT SINGH

23 Jan 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Revision Petition No.   02 of 2019

                                                Date of the Institution:           08.01.2019

                                                Date of Decision:-        23.01.2019

 

 

1.      Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Sector 12, Karnal, Haryana.

 

2.      Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, SCO No. 153-155, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh

 

          Both through its authorized signatory Shri Amarjit Singh, posted at Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, SCO No. 153-155, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

 

…..Petitioners-Opposite Parties-Judgment Debtors

 

Versus

 

Angrej Singh son of Jarnail Singh, resident of House No. 503/485, Kalandri Gate, Sushad Manjil, Karnal, Haryana.

 

……….Respondent-Complainant-Decree Holder

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

Present:-    Shri Inderjit Singh, counsel for the petitioners.

                    

 

 

                                                O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

          The opposite parties-judgment debtors have filed the instant revision petition under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for challenging the order dated 28.11.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal, whereby the objections raised by them during the execution proceedings were dismissed.

2.      The complainant, who is the respondent in the present revision had obtained a loan of Rs.15,65,000/-, which was to be repaid in 35 installments. After he had repaid the loan, he requested the opposite parties to issue the ‘No Objection Certificate’ as well as cancellation of hypothecation but despite his repeated requests the opposite parties neither issued NOC nor cancelled the hypothecation. Accordingly, the complainant filed the complaint praying therein that the opposite parties be directed to issue the ‘No Objection Certificate’ and cancel the hypothecation. He also sought directions to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and agony on account of deficiency in service by the opposite parties and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite parties put in appearance and filed the written version in complaint. Vide order dated 28.11.2018, learned District Forum directed the opposite parties to issue NOC, cancel the hypothecation and to pay Rs.11,000/- to the complainant as mentioned in the order dated 22.02.2017 and further directed the opposite parties to appear in person on 17.12.2018 before the Forum for compliance and also to show cause as to why civil/criminal proceeding be not initiated against them on account of non-compliance of the order of the Forum and concealing the fact before the Forum.

4.      It may be mentioned here that on 22.02.2017, the District Forum had directed the opposite parties to prepare fresh statement of account as per the terms of the arrangement schedule by calculating the amount for dishonor of the cheques @ Rs.500/- per cheque and overdue interest as per clause 2.7 of the agreement for delayed payments and send a correct statement of account to the complainant within 30 days and thereafter, the complainant would deposit the said amount within 30 days of receipt of statement of account.  The opposite parties were further directed to issue ‘NOC’ and cancel the hypothecation after depositing of the entire amount by the complainant as per the fresh statement of account prepared in accordance with the directions given above. The Forum further directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.11,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and also as litigation expenses. The opposite parties failed to comply with the order dated 22.02.2017 by not preparing fresh statement of account and failing to supply the correct statement of account of the complainant, whereas the complainant was ready and willing to deposit the amount, if any, towards the complainant. As such, no amount was due towards the complainant. The complainant also requested the opposite parties to issue ‘NOC’ and cancel the hypothecation and make the payment of Rs.11,000/-, while seeking enforcement of the order dated 22.02.2017 and the opposite parties be sent to civil imprisonment for non-compliance of the order.

5.      Upon notice, the opposite parties filed objections along with statement of account that the execution application was not maintainable as they had already provided the fresh statement of account as per order of Forum but the complainant failed to deposit the remaining loan amount and accordingly sought dismissal of the execution application.

6.      The objections were however dismissed by the learned District Forum vide order dated 28.11.2018.

7.      Having heard learned counsel for the opposite parties and on perusal of the impugned order, the State Commission finds that the statement of account prepared by the opposite parties was not a fresh statement of account.  One of the statements of account was dated 28.06.2017 whereas the Forum had decided the complaint on 22.02.2017, whereby the opposite parties were directed to handover fresh statement of account of the complainant but the statement of account was not prepared as per order dated 22.02.2017. The complainant had already paid Rs.35,68,310/- against the loan amount of Rs.15,65,000/- as pleaded by him.  As such, the opposite parties had failed to comply with the order dated 22.02.2017. There is, thus no merit in the objections filed by the opposite parties and accordingly learned District Forum vide impugned order was justified in dismissing the same.

8.      The revision is without any merit and, therefore, is dismissed.  

                   

 

 

 

23.01.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

D.R