Haryana

Karnal

CC/105/2021

Satpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sudhakar Mittal

14 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 105 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.18.02.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:14.12.2022

 

Satpal son of Shri Sewa Singh, resident of village Bajida Roran, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal proprietor M/s Krishna Dairy Farm, Aadhaar card no.5729-7191-4714.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Bank of India through its Branch Manager, Mugal Canal Branch, Karnal (Haryana)

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

 Argued by: Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Sanjay Singla, counsel for the opposite party.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that in the year 2010, complainant has taken a loan under agriculture and allied account number-675077210000017 from the OP for running a dairy business. The said loan obtained by the complainant after mortgaging his agriculture land measuring 4.5 acre situated in village Bajida Roran, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal. The complainant could not make the installments of his loan amount and his account was declared NPA by the OP. OP has initiated recovery proceedings against the complainant before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh and finally on 31.10.2019 the matter was compromised in between the complainant and the OP. It has been agreed under the compromise that the complainant would make the payment of Rs.17.00 lacs in full and final settlement of the loan amount. It has also been orally agreed between the parties that after initial payment of the 50% of the total agreed amount, the OP will issue approval letter of the aforesaid settlement and remaining 50% amount will be paid by the complainant within 6 months from the date of approval letter and thereafter the remaining amount shall carry the interest @ 1% per annum. After enter into an agreement, the complainant has deposited Rs.10,00,000/- with the OP i.e. Rs.1,70,000/- on 31.10.2019 and Rs.6,30,000/- on 01.07.2020. At the time of deposit of Rs.6,30,000/- the OP clearly told the complainant to deposit the balance amount on or before 31.12.2020. On 16.11.2020, the complainant visited the bank alongwith cheque of Rs.7,00,000/- and the same was duly deposited in his bank account through the Manager. The complainant requested the OP to issue No Dues Certificate as well as redeem the land already mortgaged with the bank. At this the bank Manager told the complainant to visit the branch on following day and the complainant again visited the branch on 17.11.2020. When complainant asked the Manager for issuance of No Dues Certificate, he was told that there was delay in making the payment of Rs.7,00,000/- on his part and as such he was asked to pay Rs.7,20,000/- by returning the cheque of Rs.7,00,000/-. Since the complainant wanted to settle his account without getting involved in any litigation he handed over the cheque of Rs.7,20,000/- as demanded by the Bank Manager. After obtaining the aforesaid cheque the Bank Manager told the complainant to obtain the NOC and get the mortgaged property redeemed from the charge of the bank on next few days. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of the OP several times to obtain the documents but OP did not release the documents and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and finally told the complainant that the case of the complainant was not covered under the settlement scheme as the time has been lapsed. OP further passed an order to complainant to get his amount of Rs.7,20,000/- refunded by making written request. When complainant could not get his account settled from the OP he made the request before the bank to refund the amount of Rs.7,20,000/- by making written application and forwarded the same to the Branch Manager but the bank Manager neither refunded the amount of Rs.7,20,000/- nor redeemed the property already mortgaged with the bank. The Bank Manager before obtaining application for refunding of the amount himself gave under his own hand the sample application, in which he specifically mentioned that the loan amount could be paid upto 31.12.2020.  Despite of the depositing of the entire settled amount by the complainant, the bank is not issuing the NOC and is harassing the complainant on one pretext or the other. The complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.17.20 lacs instead of Rs.17.00 lacs within period of 13 months. There is no delay on the part of the complainant. As per settlement the amount was payable after issuance of approval letter by the bank and no such approval letter has ever been sent to the complainant. The complainant is entitled for getting back his original documents including NOC and NEC from the bank and non-compliance of the facility of the moratorium announced by the Government of India and the RBI and excess charging of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant tantamount to deficiency in service and gross negligence on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On Notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that case titled as Bank of India, Karnal Versus Krishna Dairy Farm, for recovery of a sum of Rs.38,77,124/- is pending at DRT Chandigarh relating to CC account no.675030110000039 and Term Loan Account no.675077210000017 and another case titled as Bank of India, Karnal Versus Satpal for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,11,845/- relating to account no.675032110000076-KCC and Account no.675076210000099-Agriculture Term Loan is pending before the DRT-II Chandigarh. It is further pleaded that the matter was compromised between complainant and the OP under one time settlement (OTS) for a sum of Rs.17.00 lakhs on 31.10.2019 and the complainant after understanding the terms and conditions of the compromise settlement has signed the same. It is totally wrong and any oral agreement was ever made for issuance of approval letter after deposit of the 50% of the total compromised amount. The complainant after understanding the terms and conditions of the OTS scheme has compromised the matter and duly singed the  same and as per compromise letter he has to deposit 10% of agreed amount of Rs.17,00,000/-. The complainant has deposited Rs.1,70,000/- with the OP on 31.10.2019 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 28.02.2020 and Rs.6,30,000/- on 01.07.2020. As per the compromise Rs.1,70,000/- has to be paid as upfront amount and balance amount of Rs.15,30,000/- to  be paid by 28.01.2020 without interest i.e. within 90 days of conveying approval and if the payment in this manner is not made, balance amount can also be paid within six months from the date of conveying approval with interest 1% above yearly MCLR, failing which OTS will be rendered infructuous. It is denied that the at the time of deposit of Rs.6,30,000/- the complainant was asked to deposit the balance amount on or before 31.12.2020. It is further pleaded that Rs.7,00,000/- deposited by the complainant is lying in banks’ No Lien Account. It is wrong that complainant has requested for issuance of No Dues Certificate. There was delay on the part of the complainant in depositing of Rs.7,00,000/- because the complainant has to deposit the balance amount within six months from 31.10.2019 alongwith interest. It is further pleaded that complainant himself defaulted in not making the payment as per schedule under the OTS Scheme and as such NOC cannot be issued till all the outstanding amount of the OP is paid by the complainant. It is also denied that any written application or request was made by the complainant for return of Rs.7,20,000/-. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of letter dated 31.10.2019 regarding offer of compromise Ex.C1, copy of statement of bank account regarding withdrawal/payment of loan amount Ex.C2, copy of letter by complainant to Bank Manager Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 19.01.2020 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sunhera Singh, Chief Manager Ex.OPW1/A, copy of compromise offer letter dated 31.10.2019 and closed the evidence on 19.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that in the year 2010, complainant has taken a loan from the OP after mortgaging his agriculture land for running a dairy business. The complainant could not make the installments of his loan amount and his account was declared NPA by the OP. OP has initiated recovery proceedings against the complainant before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh and finally on 31.10.2019 the matter was compromised between the parties and as per the compromise, complainant would make the payment of Rs.17.00 lacs in full and final settlement of the loan amount. After enter into an agreement, the complainant has deposited Rs.10,00,000/- with the OP and on 16.11.2020, the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- with the OP. The complainant requested the OP to issue No Dues Certificate as well as redeem the land already mortgaged with the bank but after repeated requests, OP has not issued the No Dues Certificate. Complainant visited the office of the OP several times to obtain the documents but OP did not release the documents on saying that complainant was not covered under the settlement scheme as the time has been lapsed. Despite the depositing of the entire settled amount by the complainant, the bank is not issuing the NOC and is harassing the complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for OP, while reiterating the contents of the written version, has vehemently argued that case titled as Bank of India, Karnal Versus Krishna Dairy Farm, for recovery of a sum of Rs.38,77,124/- is pending at DRT Chandigarh and another case titled as Bank of India, Karnal Versus Satpal for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,11,845/- is pending before the DRT-II Chandigarh. He further argued that matter was compromised between complainant and the OP under one time settlement (OTS) for a sum of Rs.17.00 lakhs on 31.10.2019 and the complainant after understanding the terms and conditions of the compromise settlement has signed the same. There was delay on the part of the complainant in depositing of Rs.7,00,000/- because the complainant has to deposit the balance amount within six months from 31.10.2019 alongwith interest. Complainant himself defaulted in not making the payment as per schedule under the OTS Scheme and as such NOC cannot be issued till all the outstanding amount of the OP is paid by the complainant. He further argued that present complaint is not maintainable as the matter is already pending before the DRT, Chandigarh and the matter is subjudice before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the complainant has taken a loan from the OP for running a dairy business.

 11.          Before going through the merits of the case, firstly we decide the question whether the present complaint is maintainable before this Commission or not?

12.           As per the version of the OP, case titled as Bank of India, Karnal Versus Krishna Dairy Farm, for recovery of a sum of Rs.38,77,124/- is pending at DRT Chandigarh and another case titled as Bank of India, Karnal Versus Satpal for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,11,845/- is pending before the DRT-II Chandigarh. The matter was compromised between complainant and the OP under one time settlement (OTS) for a sum of Rs.17.00 lakhs on 31.10.2019. As per the compromise Rs.1,70,000/- has to be paid as upfront amount and balance amount of Rs.15,30,000/- to  be paid by 28.01.2020 without interest i.e. within 90 days of conveying approval and if the payment in this manner is not made, balance amount can also be paid within six months from the date of conveying approval with interest 1% above yearly MCLR, failing which OTS will be rendered infructuous. Complainant has not made the payment as per schedule under the OTS Scheme and has become defaulter and as such NOC cannot be issued by the OP. In view of the above, the matter is allegedly subjudice before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh and thus present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and the same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:

Dated:14.12.2022

 

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member

 

 

Sushma

Stenographer