Haryana

Ambala

CC/6/2020

Krishan Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

09 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	06 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	01.01.2020
Date of decision	:	15.06.2023

Krishan Chand s/o Shri Rulda Ram, R/o Village Abupur Kurali, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala (Haryana)-134 203

…..Complainant

versus

 

1. Branch Manager, Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank (A Govt. of India Undertaking) Branch Bhareri Kalan, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala (Haryana), (through its' Branch Manager).
2. S.D.O., Animal Husbandry (ICDP), Naraingarh, District Ambala, (through its S.D.O.).
3. Punjab National Bank, Lead Bank Office, 87-B, Model Town, Ambala City, through its' Manager.

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Abhishek Kathuria, Advocate, counsel for the Complainant.

                    Shri Ankush Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

                    OP No.2 already ex parte vide order dated 07.04.2021.

                    Shri Bhanu Partap Singh, Advocate, counsel for OP No.3.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) and prayed as under:-  

1. To direct OP No.1 to send correct CIBIL score report against the account in question and also to return the excess money paid by the complainant, with uptodate interest by crediting the same in the account of the complainant.
2. To direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,00,000/-as compensation on account of mental & physical harassment as well as monetary loss caused to the complainant.
3. To direct the OPs to pay Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation.
382.  

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the complainant is maintaining a Bank Account with the OP No.1 bearing Account No.8145 AH-00070888. The complainant applied for loan of Rs.1,00,000/- for purchase of Buffaloes for the purpose of self-employment in Scheduled Caste Category in the office of OP No.2 against subsidy. After considering the documents and conducting Interview, the loan of the complainant was sanctioned and accordingly the case of the complainant was forwarded to the OP No.1 for disbursement of the loan of Rs.1,00,000/-. But when the complainant as per advice of the OP No.2 contacted the OP No.1 being Panel Bank for disbursing the loan OP No.1 frankly told to the complainant that hardly Rs.90,000/- will be disbursed to him as Buffaloes loan and initially he will be granted Rs.45,000/- against subsidy of Rs.13,625/- and the same will be returnable in monthly instalments. He further told to the complainant that the remaining loan of Rs.45,000/- will be disbursed to him only after seeing and verifying the regular instalments of repayment of initial part loan advanced to him. OP No.1 further told to the complainant that the subsidy of Rs.13,625/- will be given to him in the remaining loan of Rs.45,000/- and the total subsidy will be Rs.27,250/- against total loan of Rs.90,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant was granted initial part loan amount of Rs.45,000/- on 23.07.2013 and thereafter, the complainant started repaying the loan in regular instalments to the OP No.1 by way of deposit in his aforesaid account. After about 4-5 regular instalments of the said initial part loan, the complainant requested the OP No.1 to release him the second loan of Rs.45,000/-; but OP No.1 kept on lingering the payment of remaining loan of Rs.45,000/- on the pretext that the subsidy amount of Rs.13,625/- is still awaited from the office of OP No.2.  Due to non releasing  of subsidy amount of initial part loan of the complainant by OP No.2 to OP No.1, the CIBIL score of the complainant was adversely effected and due to this reason, the subsequent loan i.e. the remaining loan of Rs.45,000/- was not disbursed by OP No.1. It was only when the matter was brought to the knowledge of Grievances Redressal Meeting before Shri KL.Panwar, Transport Minister, Govt. of Haryana, that the subsidy of the complainant was released but even then the complainant was not released the remaining loan.
3.           Since the complainant was in dire need of financial aid for his business purpose and sending his son to abroad for study purpose, etc., consequently he applied for other loan; but his loan was denied by making excuse that his cibil score is not uptodate and he has not cleared the loan of Rs.90,000/- and showed balance Rs.25,309/- The complainant approached  OP No.1 and requested him that he was advanced only Rs.45,000/-; which he has already repaid by way of instalments and he has paid total Rs.50,583/-, which includes the subsidy amount of Rs.13,625/-; thus his loan with uptodate interest and the amount in excess has already been paid by him and when the remaining loan of Rs.45,000/- is not disbursed to him, then how O.P. No.1 sent wrong Report of the Cibil score of the complainant but the OP No.1 did not pay any heed to the said request. Hence, the present complaint.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable; present is barred under law of limitation; the complainant has concealed true and material facts and has approached this Commission with unclean hands;  the present complaint has been filed without any cause of action etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant was a bad pay master and was not  paying the instalment qua the loan in question, on time. The complainant purchased one buffalo to which OP No.1 disbursed the loan and opened the account No. 8145AH00070888, however, the complainant himself was reluctant towards  purchase of the second buffalo and never approached the bank for second loan. On 17.11.2018 the loan account of the complainant was classified as Non-Performing Assets. The subsidy over the first buffalo was received by OP No.1, in the year 2018 after making great efforts and the same was credited in the account of the complainant. The Cibil Score is not related to OP No.1. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with special costs.
5.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.2, before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 07.04.2021.
6.           Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared and filed written version wherein it  raised preliminary objections to the effect that  the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has no Locus standi to file the present complaint against the OP No.3, as the O.P.No.3 is third party to the subject matter involved in the present case; the complainant has concealed true and material facts and has approached this Commission with unclean hands etc. On merits, it has been stated that  OP No.3 is the office of lead bank, whereas the subject matter involved in the present complaint is with regard to the non grant of  subsidy in the loan case by OP No.2 as well as non-grant of the second loan to the complainant by  O.P.No.1. OP No.3 is nowhere related to the subject matter involved in the present case nor is liable to pay any amount as claimed in the present complaint. However as per the statement of account of the complainant, the subsidy has already been credited in the account of the complainant. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with special costs.
7.            Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant, as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 and C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Kajal Saini, Officer of OP No.1- Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank as Annexure OP-1/A alongwith documents Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. On 26.04.2023, Learned counsel for the OP No.3 gave statement that written version filed on behalf of OP No.3 be treated as it evidence and as such, closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.
8.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for OPs No.1 and 3 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
9.           The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by neither granting second loan to the tune of Rs.45,000/- for buying second buffalo nor releasing the subsidy amount nor taking steps to send correct CIBIL score report, the OPs are deficient in providing service, negligent and adopted unfair trade practice. 
10.           On the contrary, learned counsel for the OP No.1 submitted that since the complainant defaulted in making payment of loan amount released in his favour to the tune of Rs.45,000/- and was in arrears of Rs.39,247/- as such, after giving him so many opportunities to pay the same, his account was declared as NPA being bad pay master. He further submitted that the complainant never approached the bank for getting the second loan for the purchase of the second buffalo.
11.           Learned counsel for the OP No.3 submitted that since the subject matter is with regard to subsidy which was to be given by OP No.2 to the complainant and also the second loan amount was to be obtained from OP No.1 by the complainant, as such, OP No.3 cannot be held responsible for it.
12.           The moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to get any relief in the present case or not? It may be stated here that perusal of record reveals that the complainant had applied for a loan with OP No.1 for purchase of buffaloes, against subsidy under Schedule Caste Category of OP No.2. It is also not in dispute that the complainant was to purchase two buffaloes i.e. for Rs.45000/- each out of which Rs.13,625/- each as subsidy was to be provided to him by OP No.2. It is evident from the pass book Annexure C-6 that an amount of Rs.45,000/- was disbursed to the complainant on 23.07.2013 under loan account no.8145AH 00070888 by OP No.1 and thereafter the subsidy of Rs.13,625/- was also disbursed in his account on 20.11.2018 by OP No.2.  However, it is coming out from the record that  since the complainant was not regular in making payment of installment of the said loan amount of Rs.45,000/- as such, OP No.1 sent reminder letter dated 05.04.2019, Annexure OP-1/2 and legal notice dated 11.06.2018, Annexure OP-1/3 asking the complainant to make payment of remaining loan amount of Rs.39,247/- alongwith  future interest, yet, there is nothing on record that the said payment was ever cleared by the complainant.
13.           It is significant to mention here that OP No.1 has taken a specific stand in its written version to the effect that since the complainant failed to clear the loan amount, referred to above, as such, his account was declared as NPA in the year 2018. No plausible reason has been given by the complainant as to why  During pendency of this complaint also, the complainant has failed to convince this Commission as why he has not cleared his loan amount. During the course of arguments also, the learned counsel for the complainant failed to give any plausible answer as to why the complainant he did not repay the entire loan amount aforesaid. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that Since the complainant has defaulted in making payment of installment of the loan amount, as such, his loan account was classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPA), as such, if his name was reflected in the CIBIL as low scorer, now of the OPs can be said to be at fault. Under these circumstances,  was reflecting in the CIBIL as low scorer,  none of the OPs can be said to be at fault. At the same time, it is also held that under those circumstances, if the complainant was allegedly not granted second loan amount to purchase another buffalo, even then the OPs cannot be faulted at.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequently, we dismiss the same, with no order as to costs. In this view of the matter, it is held that since the complainant has failed to prove his case, as such, no relief can be granted to him in that regard. However, in the interest of justice, we dispose of this complaint with the direction to OP No.1 to issue No due Certificate to the complainant, in case, he repays or has repaid the entire loan amount, so that he can get his CIBIL scores corrected, as per the due procedure of law and the OPs shall assist him in doing so, if required.  The OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

                  

Announced:- 15.06.2023.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President