Haryana

StateCommission

A/883/2018

UNION BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAKESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

PAVINDER SINGH BEDI

26 Aug 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

  Date of Instituion:17.07.2018

                Date of final hearing:26.08.2022

                                                Date of pronouncement: 14.11.2022

 

                                      First Appeal No.883 of 2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Union Bank of India through its Branch Manager, SCO No.387, Sector-8, Panchkula.

…..Appellant

VERSUS

Rakesh Kumar Singla, r/o H.No.12, First Floor,Sector 21, Panchkula.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

 

 

Present:-    Mr.P.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Robin Sathi, Advocate for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

PER: S.P.SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

JUDGMENT

 

1.      The facts of the case  as per the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Panchkula (Now in short “District Commission”) record are:

          The complainant wanted to purchase fiat punto car and for this purpose, he had to borrow loan  from bank. The dealer had raised a quotation of Rs.6,20,863/- in favour of opposite party on 22.08.2009. OP informed that margin money of the said loan was to be paid by the complainant. OP had sanctioned a car loan of Rs.4,96,000/- in favour of complainant, which was to be repaid by way of 60 monthly installments of Rs.10,900/- each. OP had issued account payee’s cheque of Rs.6,20,863/- in favour of Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd. on 22.08.2009 and the dealer has delivered the car to complainant on 24.08.2009.  At the time of loan, the bank has collected 60 signed post dated cheques from the complainant. The installment of the loan commenced from 05.1.2009 . The cheques were to be presented by the OP for encashment by every 12^th of month of English Calender.  As per schedule, when complainant approached OP in the month of September 2014 for issuance of No Objection Certificate against the loan, OP demanded an additional amount of Rs.51,111/- from him on account of interest and delayed charges. The complainant requested the OP to issue NOC, but, to no avail. However, the OP had already charged excess amount of Rs.6100/-. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

2.      Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement.  It was alleged that the loan of Rs.49,6000/- was sanctioned to the complainant on 24.08.2009, which was repayable in 60 monthly installment i.e. by August/September 2014 and the present complaint had been filed in 2017, hence the complaint is hopelessly time barred.   OP denied that it took 60 signed post dates cheques from him. The complainant did not deposit the installments in time. The installments were to commence from 05.10.2009 not from month of September as per sanction letter. The OP could not issue the No Due Certificate till all the dues were repaid by the complainant. An amount of Rs.54,327/- was still outstanding against the loan account of the complainant as on 31.10.2017.  It was denied that an excess amount of Rs.6100/- had been charged by the OP. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Preliminary objections about maintainability of complaint, misjoinder and non joinder of necessary party, locus standi etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint as prayed for.

3.      The District Commission after considering entire material available on record passed the order dated 31.05.2018, whereby it held as under:-

“I       To issue the “No Objection Certificate” to the complainant without raising any demand/payment from the complainant within one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which the OP is liable to pay interest on the above said amount @ 9% per annum till its realization.

II        To pay an amount of Rs.7000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation expenses.”

4.      Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

5.      The argument has been advanced by Sh.P.S.Bedi, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Robin Sathi, Advocate for the respondent.  With their kind assistance entire record of appeal including documentary evidence as well as whatever evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint has also been properly perused and examined.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that  the complainant did not pay outstanding loan amount regarding the said vehicle in question.   Further argued that  OP could not issue the No Due Certificate till all the dues were cleared by the complainant. An amount of Rs.54,327/- was outstanding against the loan account of the complainant as on 31.10.2017. The learned District Commission has wrongly allowed the complaint without considering the actual and factual position in the case.

7.       Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that all the installments had paid in time and after completion of the loan amount, he was entitled to claim No Due Certificate from the appellant bank.  The claimant was entitled to claim No due Certificate.  No outstanding dues were pending against him. The learned District Commission  rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. He placed his reliance upon authority of Hon’ble National Commission  titled “IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Subhash Chand Jain & Anr. Law finder Doc ID # 585858

8.      It is not disputed that the vehicle loan was raised by the complainant from the appellant bank. It is also not disputed that the loan was repayable by 60 monthly installments each of Rs.10,847/-. The complainant has paid all the installments within the stipulated time.  No outstanding dues were pending against him. The plea of the appellant that an amount of Rs.54,327/- was due against him as on 31.10.2017 is not tenable in the eyes of law because the complainant has paid all the installments in time. It is the responsibility of the  bank to issue demand letter to the complainant. The appellant has not issued any demand letter/notice to the complainant to prove the authenticity of the outstanding balance.  The appellant bank should issue the No Objection Certificate to the complainant.   Learned District Commission has rightly  allowed the complaint  directing OP  to issue No Objection certificate  in favour of the complainant within one month. The case law cited by the counsel for the respondent is applicable in the case in hand because the facts and circumstances of the case are similar.  Hence, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence, appeal  stands dismissed on merits.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.3500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant-respondent against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.

10.    Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

11.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

12.    File be consigned to record room.

 

                                                                   (S.P.Sood)

                                                                   Judicial member

 

 

 

                                                                                    (S.C.Kaushik)

                                                                     Member

 

Pronounced On:  14.11.2022                                                                  

 

S.K.(Pvt. Secy)