Punjab

Sangrur

CC/463/2019

Bikkar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Bhawanigarh Primary Cooperative Agriculture Development Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.J.S.Kaler

11 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 463

 Instituted on:   28.08.2019

                                                                        Decided on:     11.11.2022

 

Bikkar Singh son of Ranjit Singh, resident of Village Balial, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

The Bhawanigarh Primary Cooperative Agriculture Development Bank Ltd. Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

             ….Opposite party 

 

For the complainant    : Shri J.S.Kaler, Adv.

For  OP                          : Shri Sumir Fatta, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL     : PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                               : MEMBER

KANWALJEET SINGH                  : MEMBER

          ORDER BY

          JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

               

1.             Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging inter-alia that the complainant was having a loan account number 3/112 with the OP and was paying the dues accordingly to the OP.  Further case of complainant is that one Kesar Singh son of Ujagar Singh, resident of Village Dulladi filed a civil suit number 226/17.11.2018 against the complainant for  specific performance which was decided on 6.2.2014 in which the Hon’ble Civil Court directed the complainant to execute the sale deed in favour of Kesar Singh and also directed Kesar Singh to deposit the remaining sale consideration i.e. Rs.9,22,000/- in the court, which was deposited on 3.4.2014. Further case of the complainant is that thereafter Kesar Singh field the execution number 765/2015 for execution of sale deed in his favour which was got executed through the agency of court on 28.1.2019 and the execution was disposed of on 31.1.2019.

2.             Further case of complainant is that during the above said execution, OP filed the objections for claiming the amount from complainant out of the amount deposited by Kesar Singh in the court, which was allowed vide order dated 17.1.2019. Thereafter the OP moved application number 426/2019 on 19.4.2019 for claiming the amount of Rs.7,39,800/-, which was allowed by the Hon’ble Court with a specific direction to release the amount of Rs.7,39,800/- in favour of the OP and further directed not to claim any further interest from the amount deposited in the court.  After this development, the complainant approached the OP for issuance of clearance certificate but the same was not issued on the ground that an amount of Rs.30,000/- is due towards the complainant, as such the OP got deposited the amount of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant and the security amount of Rs.15,000/- was also not refunded to the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP,  the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to issue clearance certificate and to refund him the amount of Rs.30,000/- which was wrongly got deposited from the complainant and further to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental tension and agony and an amount of Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.             In reply filed by OP, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and that this Commission has got no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant took the loan.  Further it is admitted that the OP moved an application before the court of Civil Judge to redeem an amount of Rs.7,39,800/- as the said amount was outstanding against the complainant as on 31.1.2019 out of the deposited amount by Kesar Singh. However, it is denied that the complainant cleared the whole of loan account.  The remaining allegations in the complaint have been denied by the OP in the written reply.

4.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence before this Commission in the shape of documents and affidavits. The complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of Bikkar Singh, Ex.C-2 copy of order, Ex.C-3 copy of receipt voucher, Ex.C-4 copy of receipt voucher and Ex.C-5 copy of order and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP filed copy of order, Ex.OP-2 copy of mortgage, Ex.OP-3 copy of ledger and Ex.OP-4 affidavit and closed evidence.

5.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance.

6.             A bare perusal of the order dated 2.7.2019 Ex.C-2  passed by Shri Prashant Verma, Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Sangrur shows that “the application at hand is allowed and the Bank is permitted to draw/redeem an amount of Rs.7,39,800/- as referred in the application from the amount deposited in favour of the JD. It is however clarified that the bank would not deduct any further interest from the deposited amount and would be entitled to redeem only the amount so referred in the application as on 31.1.2019 which is Rs.7,39,800/-.”  It is admitted fact of both the parties that an amount of Rs.7,39,800/- as per the order dated 2.7.2019 has already been deducted by the OP Bank  from the account of the complainant and even an amount of Rs.15,000/- has got been deposited in excess from the complainant on 19.7.2019 as is evident from the copy of receipt Ex.C-3 on record.  Ex.OP-1 is the copy of application alongwith order dated 2.7.2019 and Ex.OP-4 is the affidavit of Anmol Singh Sidhu, Manager. We have perused this affidavit also, but again it is mentioned in the affidavit that the complainant was asked to clear the dues and only after that no objection certificate will be issued, but we are unable to accept such a contention of the OP, as according to the order dated 2.7.2019, the OP was only entitled to recover an amount of Rs.7,39,800/- which has already been recovered by the OP from the account of the complainant.  It is made clear that the OP has not adjusted or refunded the amount of security deposit and further has got deposited an amount of Rs.15,000/- in excess from the complainant on 19.7.2019 which amount requires to be refunded to the complainant. In the circumstances, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP to issue the clearance certificate to the complainant of the loan account in question after charging any lawful charges for issuing the clearance certificate, to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 19.7.2019 and also refund the security deposit as per bank norms. We further direct OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5500/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further an amount of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.  This order be complied with by the opposite party within a period of  60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

8.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

9.             Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                November 11, 2022.

 

            (Kanwaljeet Singh)  (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                 Member             Member                     President