ORAL

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Complaint No. 190 of 2013

Gaurav Sagar Gupta aged about 30 years,

S/o Prem Sagar Gupta, R/o 332/7, Amarpuri Colony,

Samiuddinpur, Indra Nagar, Lucknow-226016

                                                                       ....Complainant.

Versus

1- Union Bank of India through Assistant Chief

    Manager, Zonal Office, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti

    Nagar, Lucknow-226010

2- A.R.B., Union Bank of India through Chief

    Manager, Ist Floor, Regional Office, Vibhuti

    Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

3- Chairman & Managing Director of Union Bank

    of India, Head Office-239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg,

    Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.         .…Opp. Parties.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocate for complainant.

Sri Rajesh Chaddha, Advocate for Opp. Parties.

Date 4.1.2022

JUDGMENT

Per Sri Sushil Kumar,  Member- This complaint has been filed for the relief to direct the opposite parties for  releasing the seized property  alongwith NOC and papers alongwith relief for payment of Rs.25,000.00 per month for losses against each flat total Rs.30,00,000.00 alongwith 15% interest from the date of deposit of loan to date of release of NOC and property papers.

          As per allegation of the complaint, complainant took the loan from the opposite parties and paying instalments of his loan continuously. He further mentioned that due to slamp in the market could not maintain the instalment of loan. Guarantors of the complainant’s loan deposited Rs.2,10,00,000.00 including other group loan accounts, CC Limit accounts. The opposite parties after adjusting total sum in the loan account of the complainant closed the loan account on 4.1.2011, showing zero balance in the account but not returning the NOC and documents and not releasing the

(2)

seized property, therefore, this complaint is filed for the above mentioned reliefs. 

          We have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the reliefs of the complaint.

          Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties argued that recovery proceedings of remaining loans being  carried out against the complainant hence, concerned documents/NOC can not be released in favour of the complainant.

          Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant and borrowers have played fraud on the public money by taking loans from different banks by depositing copies of the same title deeds as collateral securities. He further argued that there was total loan amount Rs.3,45,12,511.19 while the complainant offered to pay only a sum of Rs.2,10,00,000.00 only. Since full outstanding dues are no recovered, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get settlement certificate and NOC.

          Upon consideration the arguments put forward by the counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the documents, this fact reveals that total amount is not deposited by the complainant. Therefore, he is not entitled to get settlement certificate/NOC or any other documents. The complaint deserved to be dismissed.        

ORDER

Complaint is dismissed.

          The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.     

        (Sushil Kumar)                            (Rajendra Singh)

              Member                                  Presiding Member

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

        (Sushil Kumar)                             (Rajendra Singh)

              Member                                  Presiding Member

Jafri, PA II

Court 3