National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Punjab & Sind Bank vs Nachatter Singh on 28 November, 2023
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1741 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 11/01/2016 in Appeal No. 504/2013 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. PUNJAB & SIND BANK HEAD OFFICE(LAW & RECOVERY) AT 21, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110008 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NACHATTER SINGH S/O. JANGIR SINGH, CHAK KALYAN, TEHSIL KOTKAPURA DISTRICT-FARIDKOT PUNJAB-151204 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. SARVAJEET KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR. KARAN DEWAN, ADVOCATE
Dated : 28 November 2023 ORDER
1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 11.01.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 504 of 2013 in which order dated 26.02.2013 of Faridkot District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 143 of 2012 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the orders of the Fora below.
2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Appellant and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant ) was Respondent in the said FA No. 504 of 2013 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondent was Complainant before the District Forum in CC no.143 of 2012.
3. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 14.07.2016. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 24.11.2017 and 24.10.2017 respectively.
4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that complainant availed agricultural credit loan of Rs.4,50,000/- for raising crops from the OP and for other agricultural requirements. He used to avail the loan facility and to pay the loan amount with interest after harvesting his crops. In the year 2009, when complainant approached OP to deposit amount in his crop loan, the officials of the OP refused to accept the same due to some embezzlement in their bank. On 01.11.2010, he received a notice from the OP wherein an amount of Rs.7,41,747/- was shown as outstanding against his account and he was directed to deposit the same. He gave a reply to the notice showing his keenness to deposit the actual amount after deducting the amount already deposited by him. He deposited a sum of Rs.5,74,000/- in lumpsum with OP. He gave an application for issuance of 'Redemption Certificate / No Dues Certificate' against his account. Inspite of repayment of loan, no dues certificate was issued in his favour by the OP. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 26.02.2013 partly allowed the Complaint. Being aggrieved by the decision of the District Forum, the OP / Bank filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide order dated 11.01.2016, dismissed the appeal of the OP. Therefore, the OP is before this Commission now in the present RP.
5. Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 11.01.2016 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
The Complaint was not cognizable by the District Forum as the petitioner's suit for recovery was pending before Permanent Lok Adalat and it was only the said court which had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the petitioner's claim against the respondent qua the crop loan.
State Commission did not appreciate that in another similar complaint viz. Complaint No. 32 of 2011 titled 'Gurcharan Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank, District Forum held that Petitioner is not guilty of committing deficiency of service and the complainant therein could not be permitted to retain the illegally credit amount in his account.
State Commission did not appreciate that judgment dated 26.02.2013 would be in direct conflict with and violation of award dated 06.02.2013 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat.
State Commission did not appreciate that matter involving fraud would otherwise be beyond the jurisdictional competence of District Forum.
State Commission did not consider that judgment dated 26.02.2013 has the effect of rewriting a commercial contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondent and the petitioner cannot be compelled to accept any amount less than the contractual entitlement and filing of suit for recovery before Permanent Lok Adalat subsequent to the filing of consumer complaint was inconsequential and District Forum could not have assumed jurisdiction which it did not possess.
State Commission did not consider that no material or evidence exists before the District Forum on the basis of which it could arrive at the finding that respondent was ready and willing to discharge its liability.
State Commission did not consider that until the respondent liquidated the crop loan in toto, No Dues Certificate could not be issued by the petitioner.
State Commission did not consider that no material existed before the District Forum on the basis of which it could conclude that by making payment of Rs.5,74,000/-, the loan account stood fully liquidated.
State Commission did not consider that in view of the matter being sub judice before the special CBI Court, it was not incumbent upon the petitioner to lead specific evidence by examining the officials to the effect that the entries were not genuine. Even also, there was no dispute on the factum of fraud committed in the petitioner's branch and the respondent was aware of it and he did not in his evidence stated that reverse entries were genuine.
6. Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.
6.1 Counsel for the Petitioner apart from repeating the points, which are stated in para 5, grounds for challenging the order of the State Commission also argued that purpose of taking loan was to raise crops and then harvest them thereafter for selling them in the Market. This was being done solely for the commercial purpose. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shrikant G Mantri Vs. Punjab National Bank 2022 Livelaw ( SC) 197. It is further argued the relation between the complainant and Bank is of Borrower and Creditor and hence, complainant do not come under the purview of definition of 'consumer'. Reliance is also placed by the counsel for the Petitioner on the following judgments of National Commission / Supreme Court:
(a) Vishamber Sunderdas Badlani Vs. Indian Bank and Ors. 1(2008) CPJ 76 (NC).
(b) Synco Industries Vs. S.B.B.J 1 (2002) CPJ 16.
(c ) Nirmal Kumar Pandey Vs. Kollati Constructions Ltd. & Ors., RP No. 1268 of 2011.
(d) LIC of India Vs. S. Sindhu (2006) 5 SCC 258 6.2. Counsel for the Respondent argued that both the fora below have correctly concluded that agricultural loan facility availed by the respondent already stands cleared and he is entitled to get NOC. It is further argued that from the perusal of statement of account of the respondent, it is clear that bank on its own reversed three entries on 18.11.2009 and further reversed two entries pertaining to the credit given and respondent has paid the entire amount and he cannot suffer on account of fraud committed by the petitioner's employee and employees of the bank have fraudulently and inappropriate withdrawn money from the respondent's account and debited the same in the account of the respondent. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Shyama Devi AIR 1978 AIR (SC) 1263. It is further submitted by counsel for the respondent that case of Punjab and Sind Bank and Anr. Vs. Mehar Singh, First Appeal No. 356 of 2012, which has similar facts was also dismissed by State Commission Chandigarh but no revision was filed in this case. Counsel further argued that District Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint even though the petitioner had filed a recovery suit against him in the Permanent Lok Adalat. Further, suit for recovery was filed by the petitioner in Permanent Lok Adalat on 13.10.2012 not only after receiving the summons issued by District Forum but also after putting up two appearance before the Forum. Further, it is argued that respondent is a consumer as has availed services of the Bank.
7. We have gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum and other relevant records. The case of the Petitioner Bank is that outstanding amount in the crop loan of Complainant was Rs.7,41,747/- against which he deposited Rs.5,74,000/- only, hence they filed a recovery suit for the balance Rs.2,82,101/- in Permanent Lok Adalat. The complainant claims to have paid the entire dues with interest and contends that he cannot be made to suffer on account of fraud committed by Bank's employees for embezzlement of bank funds. State Commission in its order has appropriately and correctly addressed and rejected the contentions of the bank that District Forum was not having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Further, the State Commission has examined Ext.C-6 statement of account at length. Extract of relevant para of order of State Commission is reproduced below:
"11. We have gone through the statement of account Ex C-6, and find that the complainant was having a credit limit for crop loan of Rs.4,50,000/- Lacs. From perusal of the said statement, we find that initially the complainant was allowed to withdraw a sum of Rs 4,50,000/- on 17.02.2005. As on 31.10.2006, the account was showing debit balance of Rs. 1,88,025/- but the bank allowed to withdraw a sum of Rs 4,50,000/- on 01.11.2006, by allowing that entry, the debit balance in the account was increased to Rs. 6,38,025/-. In order to bring the debit balance to the extent of limit sanctioned, three entries have been shown as credit entries made in the account on 01.11.2006 to the extent of Rs.28,325/-, Rs. 1,41,300/- and Rs 18,400/-, and thus regularized his account. Further the complainant had regularized his account on 11.05.2007 by depositing a sum of Rs. 47,920/-, and a sum of Rs.4,31,280/-. Similarly on 12.05.2007 a cheque of Rs.4 50,000/- was debited from his account. On 29.10.2007, a sum of Rs 4,71,000/- was deposited in the account. Thus bringing the debit balance to 0 (zero), similarly on 30.10.2007 the complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from the account and on 23.05.2008 he deposited a sum of Rs. 4,70,800/- in his account and the account showed debit balance of Rs 11/-. On 24.05.2008, he again withdrew a sum of Rs 4.50,000/- from the account and deposited a sum of Rs. 4,70,800/- on 20.11 2008. On 21.11.2008 he again withdrew Rs. 4,50,000/- from his account and the debit balance in the account increased to Rs.4,63,098/- in order to bring his account within the sanctioned limit of Rs.4,50,000/-, he deposited a sum of Rs.13,090/- in the account on the same dey i.e. 21.11.2008 and brought the account balance within limit of Rs.4,50,008/-. Thus, we find that bank on its own reversed three entries on 18.11.2009 to the extent of Rs.13,090/- and on 20.11.2009 and further reversed two entries pertaining to the credit given in the account on 01.11.2006 for a sum of Rs.1,41,300/- and sum of Rs.18,400/- Thus, inflating the balance of the account alongwith interest to the extent of Rs.7,42,097/-. However, on 25.05.2011 the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.5,74,000/- in his account and by adjusting this entry the account shows the balance of Rs.1,68,097/- on account of reversal of three entries as mentioned above. On the same day, the complainant gave a letter to the bank to issue him No Due Certificate and to close his account.
12. We are unable to comprehend how the OPs are claiming that a sum of Rs.2,82,101/- is still due from the complainant side. When such position is not correctly depicted in the statement of account of Ex.C-6 while showing the reversal of three entries of Rs.13,090/- on 18.11.2009 towards credit entry dated 21.11.2008 and two debit entries made in the statement of account on 20.11.2009 towards entries for amounts of Rs.1,41,300/- and Rs.18,400/- pertaining to the credits given in the account of complainant on 01.11.2006 to bring the balance outstanding in the limit upto the sanctioned limit amount i.e. Rs.4,50,000/-. These credit entries dated 21.11.2008 and 01.11.2006 were made by the officials of the Bank. The OPs have not examined the concerned cashier or the officers for proving that those entries were not made by them. These entries cannot be ignored merely on the ground that these were subsequently debited in the statement of account in the absence of any evidence that these entries are forged and these were wrong credit entries. Thus, we hereby affirm the order passed by the District Forum. Accordingly, we find that there is no merit in the appeal and same is dismissed."
8. There are concurrent findings of both the Fora below against the Petitioner herein. As was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269] that the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577] held that "the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla vs Gold Rush Sales And Services Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022, decided on 8th September, 2022, held that:-
"13. As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction.
14. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act."
10. State Commission has given a well-reasoned order and we tend to agree with its findings. We find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders of the State Commission or District Forum, hence the same are upheld. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.
11. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.
................................................ DR. INDER JIT SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER