State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Axis Bank Limited, vs Narinder Singh on 21 May, 2013
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 195 of 2012
Date of institution: 17.02.2012
Date of decision : 21.5.2013
1. Axis Bank Limited, Trishul, Opposite Samartheshwar temple,
Near Law garden, Elis Bridge, Ahmedabad.
2. Axis Bank Limited, SCO 343-344, Sector 35, Chandigarh through
Shri Ritesh, Manager
.....Appellants
Versus
Narinder Singh, son of Faqir Singh, resident of Village Mirpur, Tehsil and
District Fatehgarh Sahib.
.....Respondent
2nd Appeal
First Appeal No. 558 of 2012
Date of institution: 8.5.2012
Narinder Singh, son of Faqir Singh, resident of Village Mirpur, Tehsil and
District Fatehgarh Sahib.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. Axis Bank Limited, Trisul, Opposite Samartheshwar Temple, Near
Law garden, Elis Bridge, Ahmedabad.
2. Axis Bank Limited, SCO 343-344, Sector 35, Chandigarh through its
Manager/authorized person
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated
21.11.2011 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib.
Before:-
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Present in F.A. No. 195 of 2012:-
For the appellants : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Parshant Bansal, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER
First Appeal No. 192 of 2012 2
This order will dispose of following two appeals:-
S. First Appeal Appellant's Name Respondent's Order No. No. Name
1. 195 of 2012 Axis Bank Limited & Anr. Narinder Singh 21.11.2011
2. 558 of 2012 Narinder Singh Axis Bank 21.11.2011 Limited & Anr.
The above mentioned appeals are against the impugned order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib(in short the "District Forum") and are disposed off by a single order as the same are cross appeals. The facts are taken from 'First Appeal No.195 of 2012' and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent availed a crop loan facility from the appellants of Rs. 8,50,000/- on 03.07.2008. The version of the respondent was that he was paying the loan instalments regularly to the appellants. As per the statements of accounts of the respondent, an amount of Rs. 4,86,808/- was outstanding in his crop loan account and Rs. 3,27,542.38p in an other account of the respondent. The respondent wanted to clear the loan amounts, as such, deposited Rs. 4,87,000/- and Rs. 3,38,000/- i.e. Rs. 8,25,000/- with the appellants to clear the loan amount on 25.01.2011.
3. On next day, when the respondent visited the bank branch of appellant No. 2 to obtain the 'No Due Certificate' from appellant No. 2, it was told by the officials of appellant No. 2 that an amount of Rs. 97,000/- was outstanding against him and he was compelled by the officials of appellant No. 2 to deposit the same to get the 'No Due Certificate'. The respondent deposited Rs. 97,000/- with the respondent under protest on 01.02.2011 and then appellant No. 2 issued 'No Due Certificate' to the respondent.
First Appeal No. 192 of 2012 3
4. It was further pleaded that Rs. 97,000/- was not outstanding against the respondent and the respondent approached many times to the appellants to refund the same, but all in vain. On 03.03.2011, the respondent also served a registered legal notice upon the appellants and the same was replied on 21.03.2011 by the appellants. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the appellants may be directed to refund Rs. 97,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till its refund as well as to pay Rs. 1 lac on account of mental pain, tension and agony as there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants.
5. Upon notice, reply was filed by the appellants by taking preliminary objections that the complaint was malicious and filed only to avoid the payment, the complaint was not maintainable as the respondent does not fall under the definition of 'Consumer'. The respondent was defaulter, as such, the interest was charged from the respondent as per the regulations of R.B.I.. On merits, it was admitted that the respondent had availed a crop limit of Rs. 8,50,000/- from the appellants on 03.07.2008 but the respondent had not paid the instalments regularly and as such, the account of the respondent was classified as N.P.A. on 03.06.2010. An amount of Rs. 4,86,808/- was due on 01.06.2010 in 04101060005128 and Rs. 3,37,542.38 paise in an other account 041010300010238 was also due on 26.06.2010. It was admitted that on 25.01.2011, the respondent deposited an amount of Rs. 4,87,000/- and Rs. 3,38,000/- with the appellants and the same was adjusted in the two loan accounts of the respondent. After adjusting the said amounts, the interest for the period from June to December 2010 and thereafter December 2010 to January 2011 was outstanding towards the respondent. The respondent deposited the same and the 'No Due Certificate' was duly issued by the appellants to the respondent. The amount was rightly First Appeal No. 192 of 2012 4 recovered from the respondent and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. The dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, District Forum partly accepted the complaint and directed the appellants to refund Rs. 28,500/- to the respondent from the date of deposit i.e. 27.01.2011 till its realization with interest @ 9% p.a. within one month from the receipt of copy of the order.
7. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the present appeal is filed by the appellants on the grounds that the order of the District Forum is bad in law, as per settled principles, in case any legal proceedings required to be initiated by the creditor for the recovery of any amount the expenses so incurred towards the fee/litigation cost etc. are to be borne by the loanee. The amount was rightly recovered from the respondent and the order of the District Forum is against the facts and evidence produced by the appellants, as such the order of the District Forum is liable to be set-aside.
First Appeal No. 558 of 2012
8. This appeal was filed with the delay of 121 days and an application for condonation of delay is filed, which is supported by an affidavit. The respondents also filed the appeal against the order under appeal, as such, we are of the opinion that in the interest of natural justice, both the appeals should be decided on merits. As such, the application for condonation of delay filed by the applicant is accepted.
9. This appeal is filed by the complainant/appellant for the enhancement of compensation and damages suffered by the appellant on the grounds that the District Forum has misconstrued the law and the judgments cited by the appellant/complainant before the District Forum, the order of the District Forum is also against the statements of accounts of the respondent-Axis Bank itself.
First Appeal No. 192 of 2012 5
10. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, grounds of appeal, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
F.A. No. 195 of 2012
11. It is admitted case of the parties that the respondent/complainant availed crop limit of Rs. 8,50,000/- from the appellants on 3.7.2008 i.e. Rs. 3,49,951/- in Account No. 041010300010238 and Rs. 5,00,000/- in Account No. 04101060005128. The above amounts were transferred on 10.7.2008 in the saving account No. 01.231831 of the respondent.
12. The version of the appellants that the respondent has not repaid the loan amount regularly as agreed. But on the other hand, the version of the respondent is that he was paying the instalments of the loan without any default.
13. The only dispute between the parties is regarding Rs. 97,000/- which was charged/recovered by the appellants from the respondent on 1.2.2011 before the issuance of 'No Due Certificate'.
14. There is admitted case of the parties that the respondent deposited an amount of Rs. 4,87,000/- and Rs. 3,38,000/- with the appellants on 25.1.2011 i.e. total amount of Rs. 8,25,000/-.
15. We have perused the statement of accounts Ex. C-1 and Ex. C-2. As per statement Ex. C-1 Rs. 4,86,808/- was outstanding against the respondent in his account No. 04101060005128 and in the said account an amount of Rs. 3,38,000/- is shown as deposited by the respondent on 25.1.2011 and an amount of Rs. 1,48,808/- was outstanding in the said account against the respondent.
16. We have also perused the statement of account Ex. C-2 of A/c No. 041010300010238. Rs. 3,37,542.38p was outstanding against the respondent and as per the statement of account Rs. 4,87,000/- is shown First Appeal No. 192 of 2012 6 as deposited by the respondent in this account i.e. Rs. 1,49,457.62p in excess than the amount of loan which was outstanding against the respondent. So from the statement of accounts Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2, it is proved that the respondent had deposited total amount of Rs. 3,38,000/- + Rs. 4,87,000/- i.e. total Rs. 8,25,000/- in his both loan accounts.
17. From the perusal of both the statement of accounts, an amount of Rs. 4,86,808/- + Rs. 3,37,542.38p i.e. total Rs. 8,24,350.38p was outstanding against the respondent on 25.1.2011. The respondent has deposited an amount of Rs. 8,25,000/- i.e. Rs. 649.62p in excess.
18. The version of the appellants is that as the respondent was irregular to repay the loan amount, as such, his loan accounts were classified as 'NPA' i.e. Non-Performing Assets on 30.6.2010 and as such, Rs. 4,86,808/- and Rs. 3,37,542.38p were outstanding against the respondent on 1.6.2010 and 26.6.2010, respectively. Interest in both the loan account was outstanding against the respondent from June to December, 2010 and thereafter, upto 25.1.2011 on which date the loan amount was paid by the respondent with the appellants.
19. We have perused the statement of accounts Ex. C-1 and Ex. C-2 as well as Ex. C-13 and Ex. C-16. In the statement of accounts, against the column of customer status is mentioned as '01 Normal' and against the account status is mentioned 'A' Active. So from the perusal of the statement of accounts, nowhere it is mentioned that the loan accounts of the respondent were classified as 'NPA' by the appellants.
20. It was stated by Ritesh Sharma, Manager of appellant No. 2 in his cross examination "if a person does not deposit the overdue for two consecutive cropping season then his account is declared as "NPA" as in the case of Narinder Singh". The NPA is not mentioned in the account statement of the complainant. Voluntarily the Centre Office informed the concerned branch when the account is declared as NPA. The Centre office First Appeal No. 192 of 2012 7 gives the information regarding NPA in writing". But the appellants have not produced any information or letter of the Central office vide which the loan accounts of the respondent were declared "NPA". Even in the grounds of appeal, nowhere it is mentioned that on which date and vide which letter the loan accounts of the respondent were declared as 'NPA' by the Central office of appellant No. 2.
21. The appellants in grounds of appeal pleaded that the appellants have paid Rs. 6950/- + 11650/- = Rs. 18600 as Court fee for filing of the Civil Suits against the respondent in the Civil Court as well as also paid Rs. 13,110/- to Sh. J.S. Shergill as his legal fees vide bill dated 29.11.2010 for filing of the Civil suits for recovery in the Civil Court. It is further pleaded that Rs. 3500/- was paid as Advocate fee for filing of the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to Shri J.S. Shergill as his Advocate fee. The appellants also pleaded that Rs. 47567/- was outstanding as penal interest for the period of June, 2010 till December, 2010 and January 1, 2011 to 25.1.2011 when the amount was deposited by the respondent with the appellants, as such, the demand of Rs. 97000/- was legal and the same was recovered rightly from the respondent.
22. But the appellants have not produced copies of the decree sheets of the Civil suits vide which the Civil Court has decreed the Civil Suits with the costs and the appellants were entitled to recover the same as per the orders of the Civil Court.
23. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the appellants had recovered Rs. 97000/- illegally from the respondent only under the threat of non-issuance of 'No Due Certificate'.
24. The District Forum has not discussed in its order how the appellants were entitled to recover Rs. 47567/- as penal interest from the respondent but only directed the appellants to refund Rs. 28,500/- which First Appeal No. 192 of 2012 8 was recovered by the appellants from the respondent as Court fee and Advocate fee.
25. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the appeal of the appellants is without any merits and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-, to be paid by the appellants to the respondent within one month from the receipt of copy of the order. First Appeal No. 558 of 2012
26. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the order of the District Forum is liable to be modified.
27. As discussed above, the appellants-Axis Bank charged Rs. 97,000/- illegally from the respondent-Narinder Singh, as such, the appeal of Narinder Singh is accepted and Axis Bank is directed to refund Rs. 97,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 1.2.2011 i.e. date of deposit of the amount by the respondent with the appellants till its refund within one month from the receipt of copy of the order.
28. The arguments in these appeals were heard on 07.05.2013 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
29. The appellants-Axis Bank Limited in F.A. No. 195 of 2012 had deposited an amount of Rs. 14,250/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 14,250/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent-Narinder Singh by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
30. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
31. Copy of this order be placed on:-
First Appeal No. 192 of 2012 9
S. First Appeal Appellant's Name Respondent's
No. No. Name
1. 558 of 2012 Narinder Singh Axis Bank
Limited & Anr.
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
May 21, 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
as Member