Complainant Smt.Rajni Bala through the present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter, called the Act) has prayed for issuance of necessary directions to the opposite party to settle the account and handover the sale deed dated 28.03.1977 alongwith No Due Certificate to her. Opposite party be further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony alongwith litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that her husband namely Raman Kumar was running the firm at the name and style of “Raman Plywood Agency”, Geeta Bhawan Road, Gurdaspur and having Loan Account No.65050384211 in the bank of opposite party at the name of his firm. So for the purpose of security of loan, Raman Kumar got original sale deed dated 28.3.1977 executed in his favour from his father (Om Parkash) with his consent. Unfortunately, Raman Kumar died on 28.2.2012 leaving behind her as his one legal heir being wife. Even his father had already died before him on 6.7.2009. So after the death of Raman Kumar whole of business suffered a huge loss and she is also unable to run properly being household lady. On the other hand, the loan continues to stand against her, as such the opposite party bank issued letter/notice for payment of dues of loan account by raising demand of Rs.3,93,988/- to her at the firm name. She already aggrieved lady arranged the amount with the help of her parental family went to opposite party bank and agreed to clear the loan amount with request to return original sale deed dated 28.3.1977 by issuing No Due Certificate, but to her utter surprise, the opposite party Bank refused to accept the due loan amount and settle the account and refuse to handover the sale deed dated 28.3.1977 to her alongwith No Due certificate. She has made many requests and visits to settle the account and give back original sale deed and issue No Due Certificate, but no proper response is given to her. She is ready to settle dispute by fulfilling her duties being bonafide loanee, but opposite party is harassing her without any legal reason in getting back her original sale deed dated 28.3.1977 and No Due Certificate. Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite party, she has suffered great mental agony as well as physical harassment at the hands of opposite party. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party who appeared through his counsel and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the opposite party for filing the present complaint; the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and filed the present false complaint by concocting a false story and dragged the opposite party in false litigation, as such the complainant is liable to be burdened with special costs. On merits, it was submitted that the loan in question is continuing due to nonpayment of the same. The complainant has been advised by the opposite party to clear the loan amount in order to avoid further payment of interest. But the complainant is adamant, on her stand that opposite party bank should first return sale deed to her and only then she will make payment of interest, which is not practicable, as after the demise of original loanee his all legal heirs can take back the sale deed after completion of formalities required by the bank, but the complainant instead of completing the formalities is insisting the bank authorities to return the sale deed without completion of required formalities to her alone which is against rules and instructions of the bank. The complainant has filed the present complaint by setting up a false and concocted story. The complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and as such she is not entitled to any relief from this Ld.Forum. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.CW-1 alongwith other documents Ex.CW-2 to Ex.CW-4 and closed the evidence.
5. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Anil Dogra Chief Manager State Bank of India Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.
6. We have carefully heard the arguments put forth by counsel for both the parties and also gone through the case file minutely. On perusing the file, it has come out that during the pendency of complaint the bank official namely Ms. Ankita Bhagat Deputy Manager of the opposite party bank has made a statement on 5.2.2019 that complainant had paid the entire amount of Rs.4,24,309/- under one time settlement scheme and now nothing is due against the complainant. A statement of accounts is also produced to this effect on the file and the same is Mark ‘A’ (two pages). If we go through the prayer clause of complaint, then it is made clear that complainant wants to settle the account with bank alongwith a direction that original sale deed dated 28.3.1977 be returned to complainant alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. As the account is already settled during the pendecncy of complaint, only directions regarding sale deed are needed. As in their written version the opposite party has admitted to return the original sale deed as per law but subject to clearance of loan amount.
7. In view of above discussion, this Forum disposes off the present complaint by partly allowing it with a direction to opposite party bank to handover the original sale deed dated 28.3.1977 to complainant as nothing is due against the loan towards complainant. The opposite party Bank is further directed to issue a “NO DUE CERTIFICATE” to complainant as per law. Though complainant has sought for a direction to opposite party bank for settling the loan account and handing over the original sale deed dated 28.3.1977 alongwith a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment, yet on examining the facts and documents produced on the file it has been proved that complainant paid the due amount of loan during the pendency of complaint and opposite party has rather assisted the complainant by settling the loan under one time settlement scheme, as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and in this way the complainant is not entitled for any compensation on account of this.
8. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to rush of work.
ANNOUNCED: (Shri Raj Singh) (Rajita Sareen)
February 26, 2019. Member Presiding Member
MK
