Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Room No. 208 2nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran
Consumer Complaint No : 01 of 2018
Date of Institution : 10.01.2018
Date of Decision : 24.11.2021
Davinderjit Singh son of Gurnam Singh resident of Village Kalsian Khurd, Post Office Khalra, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran.
...Complainant
Versus
The Manager The Central Co-operative Bank, Branch Khalra, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran.
…Opposite Party.
Complaint Under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Charanjit Singh, President
Sh. Jatinder Singh Pannu, Member
Ms. Nidhi Verma, Member
For Complainant Sh. R.S. Khehra Advocate
For Opposite Party Sh. S.S. Anand Advocate
PER
Charanjit Singh, President;
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 12 and 13 against the opposite party on the allegations that the complainant is consumer of the opposite party and the complainant has taken the loan of Rs. 26,600/- from opposite party on 24.01.2006 in account No.192118113000047. The complainant has given blank cheques duly signed by him as a surety of loan as per terms and conditions of bank. The complainant has paid Rs.3,000/- by cash on 09.06.2006 in the bank and Rs.30,000/- by cash on dated 26.04.2013. According to account statement of bank in A/c No.119118113000047 on 28.03.2014 the balance of the complainant was nil. Under Right to Information Act, the complainant has received account statement for this loan which was prepared in handwriting by the opposite party, which is totally wrong according to real statement issued on dated 31.10.2017. From the period 24.01.2006 to 23.08.2017 no notice regarding the balance amount of loan has been given to complainant. On dated 24.08.2017 a legal notice was served upon the complainant through District Manager of opposite party and in this legal notice it has been mentioned that Cheque No. 876607 dated 29.07.2017 for sum of Rs.72,320/- which withdrawn on ICICI Bank without any intimation or information to complainant and same has been dishonored with remarks ‘account block’ whereas in account statement of complainant from period of 24.01.2006 to 04.09.2017, nowhere it has been mentioned in the account statement that a sum of Rs.72,320/- was outstanding. In the computerized account statement of complainant, balance has been shown as Rs. 35,090/- but account statement of complainant received through RTI shows outstanding of Rs.58,104.25/-. Both these entries of same account of complainant show malafide intention of the opposite party and opposite party has played fraud with complainant as per the account statement opposite party took a sum of Rs.60,000/- illegally. The opposite party knows very well that the complainant is serving in Indian Army. The opposite party threatened to complainant if the complainant has not paid the amount of Rs.60,000/- then the opposite party will take strict action against the complainant through his department. Due to this threat, complainant paid the said amount immediately and opposite party did not give any detail of this amount deposited by complainant to opposite party. The complainant has also served a legal notice dated 20.1.2017 through his counsel Shri Ravinder Singh Khehra, Advocate, District Judicial Court Complex, Tarn Taran to the opposite party bank through registered A.D., but the opposite party did not return back the balance amount to the complainant nor they filed any satisfactory reply. The complainant is consumer and aggrieved by act of opposite party and by this, the complainant has been mentally harassed. There is deficiency in the service of the opposite party and the opposite party has violated the terms of consumer services and the proceedings may be initiated against the opposite party. The complainant has prayed that the opposite party may kindly be directed to return the amount received in excess by the opposite party alongwith compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.
2 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Party and opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not legally maintainable and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. The name of the opposite party is not correctly mentioned as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts from the notice of this Commission. The complainant has taken the loan from the opposite party and loan account was opened in his name in the year 2006. On 28.03.2014 outstanding amount against the account of the complainant was Rs.34,935.25 paise and as per the bank norms when the account becomes NPA, no interest is calculated and it was only calculated when the customer offer to pay the outstanding amount. Complainant visited the opposite party bank on 04.09.2017 and offered for making the payment of the outstanding amount and as such, the interest was calculated. The interest from 28.03.2014 to 04.09.2017 becomes Rs.24,909.25 paise and when the account became NPA, the outstanding amount was Rs. 34,935.25 paise on 28.03.2014 and as such, total amount becomes Rs.60,000/- and the complainant paid the same on 04.09.2017. Statement of account issued on 31.10.2017 is absolutely correct. From time to time, family member of the complainant were informed by the officials of the bank by visiting in his house but all the times the family members of the complainant told that the complainant is serving in the Army and they will inform him. The opposite party bank has issued the notice under section 138 of the N.I. Act on 24.08.2017 as the cheque issued by the complainant was bounced and when legal notice was received, Sahib Singh brother of the complainant deposited outstanding amount of Rs.60,000/- . All the aforesaid facts have been concealed by the complainant intentionally. The present complaint is an abuse of process of law and has been filed with malafide intention to harass the opposite party. This commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complainant as the complainant in his complaint has pleaded that fraud has been committed upon him. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has taken the loan from the opposite party and account was opened in his name. When the complainant became defaulter, he issued the cheque in due discharge of his legal liability. The amount which has been deposited by the complainant has been duly credited in the account of the complainant. On 28.03.2014 the balance amount was Rs.34,935.25/- paise. Amount outstanding upto June 2017 was Rs.58,104.25/- and the complainant deposited the amount on 04.09.2017 and as such the interest of the said period from July, 2017 to 04.09.2017 i.e. Rs.1895.75/0- paise was also included and as such the total amount of Rs.60,000/- was due on the said date and same was paid by the complainant through his brother without any objection after making the settlement with the opposite party. The opposite party was not having any knowledge where the complainant was posted. However the cheque issued by the complainant has been dishonored and as such legal notice was issued upon him. The opposite party has already waived the legal charges and made full and final settlement with him and complainant has also deposited the said amount and all the other allegations in the complaint have been denied by the opposite party and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with costs. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party has tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurinderbir Singh Manager Ex. OP/1.
3 The complainant has filed the rejoinder and denied all the allegations of the written version and reiterated the stand as taken in the complaint.
4 To prove the case of complainant, Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Davinderjit Singh Ex. C-1 alongwith documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-11 and closed the evidence.
5 We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on the file by the parties.
6 In the present case it is not disputed that the complainant is an account holder of the opposite party and he has obtained loan from the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 26,600/- on 24.1.2006. The version of the complainant is that he has paid Rs. 3,000/- in cash on 9.6.2006 and Rs. 30,000/- by cash on 26.4.2013. The hand writing statement was prepared by the opposite party and supplied to the complainant under Right to Information Act. But as per the complainant, it was totally wrong as the real statement was issued on 30.10.2017 which was different. On 24.8.2019 a legal notice was received by the complainant from opposite party whereby it was mentioned that cheque No. 876607 dated 29.7.2017 for a sum of Rs.72,320/- was withdrawn on ICICI Bank without any intimation and information to the complainant and same has been dishonored with the remarks ‘account blocked’. On the other hands, opposite party alleged that on 28.03.2014 outstanding amount against the account of the complainant was Rs.34,935.25 paise and as per the bank norms when the account becomes NPA, no interest is calculated and it was only calculated when the customer offer to pay the outstanding amount. Complainant visited the opposite party bank on 04.09.2017 and offered for making the payment of the outstanding amount and as such, the interest was calculated. The interest from 28.03.2014 to 04.09.2017 becomes Rs.24,909.25 paise and when the account became NPA, the outstanding amount was Rs. 34,935.25 paise on 28.03.2014 and as such, total amount becomes Rs.60,000/- and the complainant paid the same on 04.09.2017. Statement of account issued on 31.10.2017 is absolutely correct. From time to time, family member of the complainant were informed by the officials of the bank by visiting in his house but all the times the family members of the complainant told that the complainant is serving in the Army and they will inform him. The opposite party bank has issued the notice under section 138 of the N.I. Act on 24.08.2017 as the cheque issued by the complainant was bounced and when legal notice was received, Sahib Singh brother of the complainant deposited outstanding amount of Rs.60,000/- . All the aforesaid facts have been concealed by the complainant intentionally. The opposite party has already waived the legal charges and made full and final settlement with him and complainant has also deposited the said amount and opposite party has prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed. The statement of account Ex. C-4 show that the complainant has deposited amount of Rs. 3,000/- in the year 2006 and Rs. 30,000/- in the year 2013 and at that time balance amount shown as Rs. 34,300/- and later on the complainant has not made any payment against the loan account and the opposite parties calculated the interest from 28.03.2014 to 04.09.2017 becomes Rs.24,909.25 paise and the complainant has paid Rs. 60,000/- on 4.9.2017 which is quite clear from the document Ex. C-4 and on the statement the opposite party shown the balance as NIL. But the complainant has failed to prove on record that how much amount the opposite party has received in excess. Moreover, the complainant has alleged in the complaint that the opposite party has played fraud with the complainant. But the complainant has failed to prove on record any fraud allegedly committed by the opposite party upon the complainant. The complainant has failed to place on record any deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party.
7 In the light of above discussion, complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
