State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Dharam Chand vs Branch Manager, Hp State Cooperative ... on 23 November, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.179/2012
Date
of Decision: 23.11.2012
Shri Dharam Chand son
of Shri Hamprabh,
R/o Village Rajgarh,
Post Office Rajgarh,
Tehsil Sadar,
District Mandi, H.P.
..
Appellant
Versus
Branch Manager, H.P.
State Co-operative Agriculture &
Rural Development
Bank Limited, Mandi,
District Mandi, H.P.
Respondent
..
Coram
Honble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether
approved for reporting?[1]
For
the Appellant: Mr.
Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: None
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 02.06.2012, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, has been dismissed.
2. Appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the respondent, alleging that he received a notice under Rule 27 of the H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Act, 1979, stating that a sum of `1,58,713/- was due from him to the respondent-bank and that the aforesaid amount of money was to be recovered by sale of the property, which he had mortgaged with the respondent bank.
He alleged that as a matter of fact, he had not taken any loan but still with a view to avoiding the attachment of his property, he sold some other property belonging to him, for a sum of `1,60,000/- and paid the aforesaid amount of money to the respondent. It was stated that, after payment of the aforesaid amount of money, he required the respondent to issue no due certificate, but the respondent-bank refused to issue such a certificate. He, therefore, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking issuance of a direction to the bank to issue no due certificate and also for award of compensation.
3. Respondent contested the complaint and alleged that as a matter of fact, the appellant had taken a loan of `2,50,000/-, which was to be repaid in 20 half yearly instalments and that out of that amount, he had paid only a sum of `41,311/-, on account of principal and `1,07,439/-, on account of interest and that too after issuance of notice for the sale of his mortgaged property and that a sum of `2,11,115/- was still due from him and, therefore, there was no question of issuance of no due certificate in his favour. It was also stated that the appellant had filed a civil suit also alleging that he had not raised any loan and that his signatures were obtained on some papers, in connection with the loan raised by his wife and that that suit had been dismissed in default.
4. Learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint, holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and that if the appellant has any other grievance against the respondent-bank, he can approach the civil court for Redressal of the same.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent.
6. There is an affidavit of the Manager of the bank to the effect that the appellant had raised a loan of `2,50,000/-, which was payable in 20 half yearly instalments and that the first instalment was payable in July, 2007, but he paid no instalment and that notice for sale indicating a sum of `1,58,713/- due from the appellant was in respect of the defaulted instalments, the aggregate amount of which was `41,311/- plus the interest that had accrued on the loan amount and that a sum of `2,11,115/- was still due from the appellant, after adjustment of `1,60,000/- paid by him, in response to the aforesaid notice.
7. There is no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid affidavit of the Bank Manager, especially when it is not denied by the appellant that he had filed a civil suit, seeking declaration that he had not raised any loan and that that suit stands dismissed, though according to him, the dismissal was on account of his non-appearance, on the date fixed for hearing of the suit.
8. As a result of the above discussion, appeal is dismissed, with costs quantified at `10,000/-.
9. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member November 23, 2012 *dinesh* [1] Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?