State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gurpreet Singh vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. on 30 October, 2023
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.479 of 2021
Date of Institution : 23.12.2021
Date of Reserve : 10.10.2023
Date of Decision : 30.10.2023
Gurpreet Singh son of Aroor Singh son of Bahal Singh, resident of
House No.154-B, Fatehgarh, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Ferozepur,
now confined in Central Jail, Ferozepur.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
HDFC Bank Limited, Branch Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur
through its Branch Manager.
........Respondent/Opposite party
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 13.09.2021 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Ferozepur.
Quorum:-
Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Nitish Garg, Advocate for Sh.Rahul Arora, Advocate For the respondent : Ms.Niharika Goel, Advocate for Sh.P.M.Goyal, Advocate HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant-Gurpreet Singh against the order dated 13.09.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal First Appeal No 479 of 2021 2 Commission, Ferozepur (in short 'District Commission'), whereby the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') was dismissed.
It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant- Gurpreet Singh, availed the crop loan limit from the opposite party- Bank by mortgaging his agriculture land by creating charge over the same which was registered in the office of the concerned Sub Registrar and on that strength the loan was advanced. The complainant also availed the gold loan from the opposite party- Bank having account No.72310829 by pledging his gold ornaments 9 in numbers weighing 112.200 and the loan of Rs.1,65,000/- was secured by the said gold. Due to registration of false case, the complainant was confined in Central Jail, Ferozepur and Bank has filed the complaint u/S 138/142 of NI Act pending in the court of Sh.Gaurav Kumar Sharma, JMIC, Ferozepur. The Bank has already sufficient security of mortgaged land and they can recover the same by selling the said land. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party to clear the gold loan account and offered the amount but they adamant to auction the same on or before 15.12.2019 in order to adjust the said amount in crop loan account. This act and conduct of the opposite party amounts to First Appeal No 479 of 2021 3 deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which compelled him to file the complaint before the District Commission, seeking following reliefs:
i) to release the gold ornaments on receipt of amount;
ii) to pay Rs.1 lac as compensation and damages; and
iii) to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, opposite party did not appear despite service and was proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 02.03.2021.
4. The complainant led his evidence in support of his respective contentions before the District Commission and after hearing the contentions of the complainant, the complaint was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 13.09.2021. Although, the respondent/opposite party was proceeded against ex-parte before the District Commission but they appeared before this Commission and argued the matter at length.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.09.2021 and to allow his appeal.
6. We have heard the contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record as well as written arguments filed by the appellant. We have also given our thoughtful consideration to the same.
7. In the written arguments filed by the appellant/complainant, it has been vehemently contended that the District Commission has not appreciated the law point involved in this case because the First Appeal No 479 of 2021 4 appellant/complainant availed two different loans, one is the crop loan and other is the gold loan by hypothecating the gold ornaments. The crop loan was advanced by the respondent/ opposite party against the lien on the land of the appellant/complainant and for the gold loan, gold ornaments were taken as security but when the appellant/complainant requested the respondent/opposite party-Bank to finish the gold loan and got released the same as he decided to make the payment but the respondent/opposite party refused and alleged that this amount will be adjusted in the crop loan, which is totally against the law and amounts to deficiency in service on behalf of the respondent/opposite party.
8. Although, learned counsel for the respondent/ opposite party appeared at the appellate stage because before the District Commission they were proceeded against ex-parte. The respondent / opposite party even at the appellate stage before this Commission have failed to convince that both the loans availed by the appellant/complainant were joint and the lien was marked on both the loans i.e. on the land and on the gold and that is why they have the right not to release the gold ornaments and marked the lien on the crop loan and there is no deficiency in service on their part.
9. Although, a specific plea has been taken by the respondent/ opposite party that both the loans are inter-connected but there is not an iota of evidence on the file which may show that there was First Appeal No 479 of 2021 5 any clause while advancing both the loans that they should have lien marked on each other and both the loans are to be settled together. There is no document on file on behalf of the respondent/ opposite party that the appellant/complainant obtained the crop loan against hypothecation of his land and gold loan by hypothecating his gold ornaments and both the loans are inter- connected. There is not even a single evidence that there lien is there interconnecting the loans with each other or no endeavour has been made by the respondent / opposite party to prove this fact. The onus was heavily upon the respondent/opposite party to prove this fact that both the liens are inter-connected and it was the duty of the appellant/ complainant to return both these loans simultaneously. It was the bounden duty of the respondent/ opposite party to establish their claim because law is very clear that the party who claims has to stand on his own legs and prove the same but the respondent/opposite party, who was ex-parte before the District Commission as they have failed to appear there to defend their case now and at the appellate stage although they have appeared but they have failed to establish their stand, as alleged by them.
10. In the present case, the appellant / complainant is asking from the respondent/ opposite party to release his gold ornaments as he has already returned all the outstanding amount pending qua the gold loan which is a very genuine prayer, which the District Commission has totally ignored, as such, the order passed by the First Appeal No 479 of 2021 6 District Commission is hereby set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is hereby allowed, resultantly the complaint is also allowed. The following directions are issued to the respondent/ opposite party:
i) to release the gold ornaments on receipt of the loan amount obtained by the appellant/complainant against the gold ornaments.
It is made clear that respondent/opposite party shall charge no interest on the gold loan amount from the date of filing of the complaint.
ii) to pay Rs.11,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.
11. The respondent/opposite party is directed to comply with the above said directions within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order.
12. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER October 30th,2023 parmod