State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab And Singh Bank vs Balram Khurana And One Another on 16 September, 2019
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FA No.1237 / 2008.
Punjab & Sindh Bank,
Kilagate Branch,
Gwalior (M.P.). .... APPELLANT.
Versus
1.Balram Khurana, s/o Shri Mulakhraj Khurana, r/o Hanuman Nagar, Phalka Bazar, Lashkar, Gwalior (M.P.).
2. Harjeet Singh, Former Bank Manager, Punjab & Sindh Bank, r/o D -2, Sector 3, Vinay Nagar, Bahodapur, Gwalior (M.P.). .... RESPONDENTS. As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :
Date of ORDER
Order
16.9.2019 Shri Somendra Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
Heard
2. This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 5.3.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior (for short the "Forum") in C.C. No.521/2007 whereby the Forum has directed the appellant - Bank to
- 2- return the sale deed alleged to be mortgaged by the respondent - complainant with it for grant of loan under the "Pradhan Mantri Rojgar Yojna". In the alternative it has been directed by the Forum to the appellant to pay Rs.7000/- towards compensation and cost with interest @10% p.a.
3. According to the appellant under the "Pradhan Mantri Rojgar Yojna"
loan was sanctioned in favour of the first respondent and a loan amount of Rs.95,000/- was released to him. It is stated that in the Scheme there was no requirement of equitable mortgage of the property for advancing the loan. A categorical statement was made that no registry of property was taken from the first respondent as a collateral security for sanction of the loan. It is also the case of the appellant that the loan was sanctioned as per the form filled up by the first respondent - complainant in which also there is no mention that as a collateral security the registry of the property of the first respondent was kept as equitable mortgage by deposit of the original sale deed. He submits that in the absence of there being any cogent material on record the Forum has committed error in directing the return of the said collateral security presuming that it was obtained by the appellant
- Bank while extending the facility of loan.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant - Bank and perused the record and the impugned order.
- 3-
5. On going through the impugned order and the record we find that there is no material available to hold that the respondent - complainant had kept the sale deed with the appellant as collateral security for advancement of the loan. It is also not borne out from the record that the appellant had ever taken the sale deed as an equitable mortgage for sanction and release of the loan. We have also noticed that in reply affidavit the appellant had specifically stated that no collateral security by equitable mortgage was taken from the first respondent - complainant. There is no counter affidavit of complainant to this specific averment of the appellant. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Forum being based on conjectures and surmises the same is unsustainable.
6. As a result, we set-aside the impugned order by allowing this appeal. No order as to costs.
(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (P.K. Parashar)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
phadke