State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Br. Manager, Uco Bank. vs Sh. Jaswant Singh. on 2 May, 2019
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 209/2018
Date of Presentation: 12.06.2018
Order Reserved on : 26.12.2018
Date of Order : 02.05.2019
......
Branch Manager UCO Bank Lambagaon Post Office
Lambagaon Tehsil Jaisinghpur District Kangra H.P.
...... Appellant/Opposite party
Versus
Shri Jaswant Singh Son of Shri Harnam Singh Resident of
Village and Post Office Chadhiar Tehsil Baijnath District Kangra
H.P.
......Respondent/Complainant
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Dalmia Advocate.
For Respondent : In person.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 20.04.2018 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.128/2017 titled Jaswant Singh Versus Manager UCO Bank.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Branch Manager UCO Bank Versus Jaswant Singh (F.A. No.209/2018) Brief facts of Matter:
2. Complainant filed consumer complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant obtained Cash Credit Limit from opposite party to the tune of Rs.350000/- (Three lac fifty thousand). It is pleaded that mortgage deed was executed by complainant with opposite party and title deed was deposited with opposite party as security for CC Limit. It is further pleaded that complainant deposited entire amount on dated 28.06.2017 and no due certificate was issued by the opposite party on dated 28.06.2017 Annexure C-1 in favour of the complainant.
It is further pleaded that despite issuance of no due certificate by opposite party on dated 28.06.2017 mortgaged title deed was not released by the opposite party till 25.09.2017. It is further pleaded that opposite party kept the mortgaged title deed approximately for about three months in its custody after clearance of all due amount and after issuance of no due certificate. It is further pleaded that opposite party also charged amount from complainant qua various items after issuance of no due certificate and opposite party committed deficiency in service. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that complainant is not a consumer because 2 Branch Manager UCO Bank Versus Jaswant Singh (F.A. No.209/2018) complainant has availed loan facility for commercial purpose. It is pleaded that present consumer complaint was filed by the complainant as counterblast to the proceedings filed under SARFAESI Act 2002 by opposite party. It is further pleaded that loan account of the complainant was declared as NPA. It is further pleaded that complainant is estopped to file the present consumer complaint due to his own act and conduct. It is admitted that complainant deposited amount of Rs.350000/- (Three lac fifty thousand) through RTGS on dated 28.06.2017. It is further pleaded that original title deed of complainant was deposited at Dharamshala Branch because Lambagaon Branch is not a notified Centre for depositing title deeds. It is further pleaded that title deed was sent from Dharamshala branch to Lambagaon Branch. It is further pleaded that excess amount to the tune of Rs.10888/- (Ten thousand eight hundred eighty eight) was refunded to the complainant. It is further pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. Learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint and ordered opposite party to refund amount of Rs.49200/- (Forty nine thousand two hundred) to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. Learned District Forum further ordered opposite party to pay compensation to the tune of 3 Branch Manager UCO Bank Versus Jaswant Singh (F.A. No.209/2018) Rs.25000/- (Twenty five thousand) to the complainant. Learned District Forum further ordered opposite party to pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs.3000/- (Three thousand) to the complainant.
5. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned District Forum opposite party i.e. UCO Bank through Branch Manager filed present appeal before State Commission.
6. We have heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant and we have also heard respondent who appeared in person before State Commission and we have also perused entire record carefully.
7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by appellant i.e. UCO Bank is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal and whether after issuance of no due certificate UCO Bank was legally competent to claim interest charges, advertisement charges, commitment charges, ledger folio charges, incidental charges etc. as mentioned in Annexure OP-7 from the complainant and whether non-releasing of mortgaged title deed in favour of complainant by UCO Bank continuously for three months after issuance of no due certificate amounts to deficiency in service?
2. Final order.
4
Branch Manager UCO Bank Versus Jaswant Singh (F.A. No.209/2018) Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
8. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant obtained cash credit limit from UCO Bank Branch Lambagaon District Kangra H.P. There is further recital in affidavit that no due certificate was issued by UCO Bank on dated 28.06.2017. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent deposited amount of Rs.390000/- (Three lac ninety thousand) with UCO Bank despite the fact that liability of complainant was to the tune of Rs.330000/-(Three lac thirty thousand). There is further recital in affidavit that after payment of all due amount to the opposite party mortgaged title deed was not released to the deponent approximately for three months. State Commission has carefully perused all the annexures filed by complainant.
9. Opposite party filed affidavit of Munish Thakur Manager UCO Bank Branch Office at Lambagaon District Kangra H.P. in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that complainant is not a consumer because complainant has availed loan facility for commercial purpose. There is further recital in affidavit that present consumer complaint was filed by complainant as counterblast to the proceedings filed under SARFAESI Act 2002 by opposite party. There is further recital in affidavit that loan account of complainant was declared as NPA by opposite party. There is further recital in affidavit that 5 Branch Manager UCO Bank Versus Jaswant Singh (F.A. No.209/2018) symbolic possession of the property mortgaged by complainant was taken on 30.05.2017. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant deposited amount of Rs.350000/- (Three lac fifty thousand) through RTGS on dated 28.06.2017 and cleared all outstanding amount. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant deposited the title deed as security of loan amount. There is further recital in affidavit that original title deed was deposited at Dharamshala Branch. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant visited the branch office of opposite party to collect the title deed on dated 25.09.2017 and same was handed over to the complainant. There is further recital in affidavit that excess amount to the tune of Rs.10880.20/-
(Ten thousand eight hundred eighty rupees and twenty paisa) was also refunded to the complainant on dated 25.09.2017 and CC account of the complainant was closed. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by opposite party.
10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of UCO Bank that loan facility was obtained by the complainant for commercial purpose and on this ground appeal filed by UCO bank be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that matter in dispute 6 Branch Manager UCO Bank Versus Jaswant Singh (F.A. No.209/2018) inter se parties is relating to non-releasing of mortgaged title deed in favour of complainant continuously for about three months after issuance of no due certificate by UCO Bank on dated 28.06.2017. State Commission is of the opinion that as per Section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 any service rendered by bank falls under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is held that service of opposite party falls under Section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is proved on record that no due certificate was issued by UCO Bank in favour of complainant on dated 28.06.2017. State Commission is of the opinion that after issuance of no due certificate Annexure C-1 by UCO Bank in favour of complainant UCO bank was not legally competent to retain the title deed of complainant continuously for about three months under its custody. State Commission is of the opinion that UCO bank was under legal obligation to release title deed expeditiously to the complainant after issuance of no due certificate. State Commission is of the opinion that UCO Bank has committed deficiency in service by way of retaining equitable mortgaged title deed after issuance of no due certificate approximately for three months.
11. Even Branch Manager has admitted that excess amount was received from the complainant and thereafter excess amount to the tune of Rs.10888/- (Ten thousand eight 7 Branch Manager UCO Bank Versus Jaswant Singh (F.A. No.209/2018) hundred eighty eight) was refunded. No reason assigned by the UCO Bank as to why excess amount was received from the complainant. Receiving of excess amount from the complainant by opposite party is ipso-facto deficiency in service.
12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of UCO Bank that order of learned District Forum that opposite party would pay amount of Rs.49200/- (Forty nine thousand two hundred) to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum is contrary to law and contrary to proved facts and on this ground appeal filed by UCO bank be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused statement of account Annexure OP-7. As per statement of account despite issuance of no due certificate in favour of complainant by opposite party on dated 28.06.2017 opposite party has claimed interest charges, advertisement charges, commitment charges, ledger folio charges, incidental charges etc. from the complainant. State Commission is of the opinion that after issuance of no due certificate by opposite party in favour of complainant on dated 28.06.2017 opposite party was not legally competent to claim any other charges from the complainant w.e.f. 04.07.2017 to 25.09.2017. It is held that opposite party has committed deficiency in service by way of claiming various other charges after issuance of no 8 Branch Manager UCO Bank Versus Jaswant Singh (F.A. No.209/2018) due certificate in favour of complainant. No explanation given by UCO bank under what provision of law UCO Bank has claimed charges mentioned in Annexure OP-7 w.e.f 04.07.2017 to 25.09.2017 after issuance of no due certificate in favour of complainant on dated 28.06.2017. It is well settled law that UCO Bank could not be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time as per law. See AIR 1993 SC 352 R.N. Gosain Versus Yashpal Dhir. It is well settled law that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi-judicial proceedings. No explanation given by UCO bank as to how after issuance of no due certificate in favour of complainant on dated 28.06.2017 in the statement of account amount to the tune of Rs.66939/- was shown as balance. It is held that above acts of opposite party amount to deficiency in service ipso-facto.
13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of UCO Bank that present consumer complaint was filed by complainant as counterblast to the proceedings initiated by UCO Bank under SARFAESI Act 2002 and on this ground appeal filed by UCO bank be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that after issuance of no due certificate Annexure C-1 in favour of complainant by opposite party on dated 28.06.2017 all liabilities of complainant came to end as per law because 9 Branch Manager UCO Bank Versus Jaswant Singh (F.A. No.209/2018) opposite party has itself voluntarily given certificate that complainant has paid all the dues of bank. State Commission is of the opinion that word all dues paid means entire liability of the complainant stood liquidated by opposite party Bank by way of issuing no due certificate dated 28.06.2017 Annexure C-1 placed on record. No due certificate Annexure C-1 is quoted in toto:
UCO BANK (Government of India Undertaking) Honours Your Trust BO/LAMBAGAON/2016-17/074 28.06.2017 TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN It is certify that Mr. Jaswant Singh Rana S/O Harnaam Singh Rana R/O V.P.O.-Chadiar Tehsil-Baijnath District-Kangra (H.P.) has paid all the dues of our bank raised from B/O Lambagaon against credit card 10680500000092 title as M/S PAUL KARYANA STORES for amount of Rs.350000/-.
Sd/-
Manager Branch Lambagaon
14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of UCO Bank that learned District Forum has granted excessive compensation to the complainant and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. Complainant is senior citizen of India aged 72 years and senior citizen of India approached District Forum for redressal of his 10 Branch Manager UCO Bank Versus Jaswant Singh (F.A. No.209/2018) grievances due to act and conduct of opposite party which caused mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence it is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to interfere in the compensation order of learned District Forum.
15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of UCO Bank that learned District Forum has granted excessive litigation costs to the complainant and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that reasonable litigation costs has been granted by learned District Forum to the senior citizen of India and same does not warrant any interfere by State Commission.
16. Submission of complainant who appeared in person before State Commission that order of learned District Forum does not warrant any interference by State Commission and on this ground appeal filed by UCO Bank be dismissed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that after issuance of no due certificate on dated 28.06.2017 Annexure C-1 by UCO Bank in favour of complainant UCO Bank has claimed interest charges, advertisement charges, commitment charges, ledger folio charges, incidental charges etc. from the complainant. Hence it is held that UCO Bank has ipso-facto committed deficiency in service by way of 11 Branch Manager UCO Bank Versus Jaswant Singh (F.A. No.209/2018) claiming other charges from the complainant after issuance of no due certificate. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order
17. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order of learned District Forum is affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. No due certificate Annexure C-1 dated 28.06.2017 and Statement of account Annexure OP-7 issued by UCO Bank shall form part and parcel of order. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member Sunita Sharma Member 02.05.2019.
*GUPTA* 12