State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lakhwinder Singh vs Punjab And Sind Bank, Branch Office, ... on 8 June, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
...
First Appeal No.470 of 2012
Date of Institution : 17.04.2012
Date of decision : 08.06.2012
Lakhwinder Singh son of Sh.Chhotu Gir resident of Prem Nagar, Kotkapura,
District Faridkot.
...Appellant
Versus
1. Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch Office, Kotkapura, District Faridkot through
its Branch Manager.
2. Punjab and Sind Bank, Head Office 1st Floor, 21, Rajendra Palace, New
Delhi through its M.D.
...Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 16.2.2012 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Faridkot.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President.
Sh.Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Sh.Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Surinder Garg, Advocate. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT VERSION OF THE APPELLANT
Lakhwinder Singh appellant had taken the loan amount of Rs.2 lac from the respondent bank in the year 2005 bearing loan account No.113/47. No pass book for the loan account was issued by the respondent bank to the appellant. The loan was to be repaid by the appellant in monthly instalments of Rs.2000/- each with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. The appellant had started making the payment of monthly instalments and continued making payment till March, 2009.
2. It was further pleaded that apart from these monthly instalments, the appellant had also deposited an amount of Rs.1,63,701/- in lump sum in March, First Appeal No.470 of 2012 2 2009 and again deposited Rs.10,000/- near about the same time. Accoridngly, the amount of Rs.1,73,701/- was credited in the loan account of the appellant as per statement of account issued by respondent No.1.
3. It was further pleaded that thereafter the appellant deposited one more instalment of Rs.2000/- on 19.3.2009. When the appellant approached respondent No.1 for depositing next instalment, he was told that functioning of respondent bank was suspended due to embezzlement in the bank branch for which an enquiry was going on. Therefore, no instalment could be deposited. The appellant again contacted respondent No.1 three times after an interval of about one month each for deposing monthly instalments but the same reply was given to him each time.
4. It was further pleaded that the appellant obtained statement of account on 8.6.2009 to ascertain the balance of the loan amount outstanding against him and it was found that a sum of Rs.59,138/- was outstanding against the appellant as on 8.6.2009. This statement of account reveals that respondents had charged an excess rate of interest on the loan amount then the agreed rate of 8% per annum. Apart from this, the respondents had debited some amount in the loan account of the appellant under heading inspection charges etc. These charges were illegal.
5. It was further pleaded that the appellant was ready to pay the actual balance amount of the loan. The appellant had gone to respondent No.1 for a number of times for this purpose, but the respondents failed to disclose the actual balance amount of loan. Therefore, the appellant could not pay the balance amount. The respondents were not entitled to charge interest on the above mentioned loan amount from March, 2009 onwards. The respondents also failed to accept the monthly instalments from the appellant due to suspension of its functioning on account of embezzlement. The appellant served legal notice dated 7.3.2011 on the respondents through his counsel to know about the exact amount outstanding against him. But respondents failed to give reply to this notice. Therefore, the respondents have committed deficiency in service. Hence the complaint. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed. First Appeal No.470 of 2012 3 VERSION OF THE RESPONDENTS
6. The respondents filed written statement. Preliminary objections were pleaded that the respondent bank has already filed civil suit against the appellant and guarantors Darshana Rani and Neelam Rani on 7.3.2011 for recovery of the loan amount. The said civil suit was pending for 22.7.2011. The rate of interest was 8.75% per annum and not at the rate of 8% per annum. It was denied if the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.1,63,701/- in March, 2009 or if he had deposited another amount of Rs.10,000/-. The entries of this amount are fictitious made fraudulently by Surjit Singh, Field Officer to conceal his fraud. Surjit Singh was the then RDO of the respondent bank. He had committed fraud in the bank for which the respondent bank had got registered a criminal case bearing FIR No.80 dated 5.5.2009 in Police Station City Kotkapura, under Section 420/465/467468/471/477-A and 120-B IPC against him. These fictitious entries are made in the loan account of the appellant by Surjit Singh fraudulently. So much so, he bifurcated the amount deposited by the borrowers towards the repayment of loan amount.
7. It was further pleaded that it took more than six months to investigate the total fraud, for which Surjit Singh was under trial and criminal case was pending in the court of Sh.Jaspal Verma, JMIC, Faridkot. It was admitted that appellant had deposited Rs.2000/- when fraud was being detected. It included fictitious credit as well as debit entries, which now have been deleted. It was denied if the respondents have charged interest in excess.
8. It was further pleaded that a sum of Rs.2,69,421/- with future interest are outstanding against the appellant for which the respondent bank has filed civil suit. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank. The appellant was hand in glove with Surjit Singh RDO, who had made these false entries. Hence it was prayed that complaint be dismissed. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:
9. Parties produced the affidavits / documents in support of their respective version.
First Appeal No.470 of 2012 4
10. The learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (in short "District Forum") dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 16.2.2012.
11. Hence the appeal.
DISCUSSION:
12. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant was that appeal be accepted, impugned order dated 16.2.2012 be set aside and the respondents be directed to point out the actual balance amount against the appellant and to receive the same and clear the account.
13. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
14. The version of the appellant was that on 7.3.2011, he had deposited a sum of Rs.1,63,701/- and another amount of Rs.10,000/-. However, the respondents alleged that these entries were false and fictitious entries made by Surjit Singh, Field Officer of the respondent bank, who was hand in glove with the appellant. The respondent bank has not only got registered a criminal case against the said Surjit Singh, but the respondent bank also filed civil suit for recovery of Rs.2,69,421/- against the appellant.
15. Therefore, complicated issues are involved in this appeal as to whether the appellant had actually made the payment of these amount to the respondent bank or if these entries are fictitious entries. Lot of evidence is required. The civil suit filed by the respondent bank against the appellant for recovery is already pending trial. Therefore, the appellant would be at liberty to take that plea in the civil suit filed by the respondents against the appellant. The version of the respondents is correct that a criminal case is registered against Surjit Singh, Field Officer and matter is pending consideration before the criminal Court. Therefore, it is a fit case that parties should be relegated to the Civil Court. The learned District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint.
16. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and same is dismissed.
17. However, the appellant would be at liberty to resort the civil remedy and the period spent by the appellant in pursuing this remedy from 2.5.2011 when the complaint was filed by him till today shall not be counted towards limitation. First Appeal No.470 of 2012 5
18. The arguments in this case were heard on 29.5.2012 and the order was reserved. Now parties be communicated about the same.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Jasbir Singh Gill), Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member June 08, 2012.
Davinder