Haryana

StateCommission

A/44/2019

UNION BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM LAL - Opp.Party(s)

P.S.SOBTI

07 Feb 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.44 of 2019

                                                 Date of Institution: 14.01.2019

                                                         Date of final hearing: 07.02.2023

                                                       Date of pronouncement: 09.03.2023

Union Bank of India, Main Branch, Subhash Mandi, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.

…..Appellant

Versus

Ram Lal son of Shri Lachman Dass resident of House No. 71, Brahma Colony, Kurukshetra.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member.

 

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

                   Mr. Gaurav Deep Goel, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Delay of 45 days in filing the present appeal has been condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      The present appeal No.44 of 2019 has been filed against the order dated 30.10.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (In short Now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.88 of 2017, which was partly allowed.

3.       The brief facts of the case are that opposite party (OP) in the month of June, 2016 informed the complainant that he stood guarantor for Ambey Cement Store and had mortgaged his house No. 71/7, Brahma Colony, Kurukshetra which of course was objected by the complainant alleging inter alia that he  never offered any guarantee for M/s Ambey Cement Store regarding extended liability of Rs.20 lacs. Infact complainant has been maintaining that in case OP has any guarantee papers with them for extended liability of Rs.20 lacs same can be produced before the forum but some how or the other no response was received from OP. Finally on 17.12.2016 various documents obtained through RTI revealed that Sh. Ashwani Kumar son of complainant was enjoying the limit of Rs.50 lacs upto 25.12.2013 for which said Ashwani Kumar had offered personal guarantee and mortgaged his one shop in Devidasspur and had  mortgaged another shop in the name of his wife Rashmi Suri and both are the guarantors of Rs.50 lacs in loan case of Ambey Cement Store. Despite all this OP has withdrawn Rs.2,20,000/- from complainant’s bank account and encash fixed deposit of Rs.1,90,000/- in 2016 without any information given to the complainant. Thus, there was clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

4.      In its written version, OP raised preliminary objections with regard to non-joinder of necessary parties, concealment of facts, jurisdiction and complaint being false and frivolous. On merit, OP submitted that complainant has duly guaranteed the loan/financial facilities granted to M/s Ambey Cement Store which is a firm of the son of the complainant and had even mortgaged his House No. 71/7, Brahma Colony, Gol Bank, Kurukshetra. Borrower has siphoned off and diverted the funds disbursed by the OP so his account became NPA in 2016 and OP pressed upon him to adjust the account failing which the OP shall initiate action under SARFAESI Act, 2002 for realization of the outstanding amount from mortgaged properties.    Complainant was requested to transfer the proceeds of fixed deposit along with amount lying in his account, therefore said FDR was encashed and its proceeds were deposited in the said account and thereafter Rs.2,20,000/- was transferred to the said loan account. It is wrong to say that the OP has done this without any  information to the complainant. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Rohtak has allowed the complaint vide order dated 30.10.2018, which is as under:-

“Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we partly allow the complaint and direct the Op to pay the amount of Rs.2,20,000/- as shown in Ex.C4 to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization.  The Op is also directed to pay R.30,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation charges.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7.      These arguments were advanced by Sh.P.S. Sobti, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh. Gaurav Deep Goel, learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance entire record of appeal as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellant argued that complainant executed declaration form on 17.12.2013 admitting therein his liability to the extent of Rs.70 lacs and thereafter further vide letter dated 08.10.2015 confirmed that he stood guarantor in the CC limit facility of Rs.70 lacs granted to M/s Ambey Cement Store and confirmed the creation of mortgage of his house. Thereafter on 26.08.2016 he executed guarantee for Rs.96 lacs including the extended amount of Rs.20 lacs. In the year 2016 the account of M/s Ambey Cement Store became NPA and complainant being guarantor was asked telephonically to deposit the overdue amount, on which complainant requested the appellant to go ahead with transfer of proceeds of FDR of Rs.1,90,000/- along with other amount lying in his bank account. Therefore, everything was very much within the knowledge of the complainant, so now he was not entitled for the claim amount as prayed for.

9.      Learned counsel for the respondent argued that complainant has not given any guarantee of M/s Ambey Cement Store at any time therefore, amount deducted by the appellant was illegal, wrong and without knowledge of the complainant. Learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 

10.              It is admitted that complainant obtained a fixed deposit for Rs.1,90,000/- in the year 2016 but appellant has got it encashed premature on 31.03.2016. Added thereto appellant has failed to produce on record any such written request of the complainant advising it or allowing it to withdraw the amount from his saving bank account for appropriating it towards the NPA account. Appellant has withdrawn the amount of term deposit prematurely without obtaining his mandate and transferred an amount of Rs.2.20 lacs from his account which proves the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.  The learned District Commission rightly allowed the claim of the complainant partly. The learned District Commission had committed no illegality while passing the order dated 30.10.2018.  The appeal is also devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

12.       Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

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

14.      File be consigned to record room.

Date of pronouncement: 09^thMarch, 2023

 

 

 

 

                        (Suresh Chander Kaushik)                      (S. P. Sood)                                                  Member                                                            Judicial Member                

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)