PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 23.2.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 124 of 2006, Chandigarh Housing Board v. Punjab National Bank and Another.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the complainant is that it had launched a Housing Scheme in the year 1997 under 268 MIG and LIG (D) flats in Sectors 47 -D and 40 -B were constructed. Service of the Punjab National Bank (OP) had been hired/availed for collection of monthly instalments and other dues and Account No. 5210 was opened in the name of the complainant Board. It is further stated that one dwelling unit No. 1639/1 in Sector 40B was allotted to Smt. Maya Alam as per allotment letter dated 10.6.84 under the scheme. The allottee was required to pay monthly instalment of Rs. 711 each in Account No. 52100 of the complainant CHB w.e.f. 10.9.1984. The EMI was to be paid by 10th of each month for the period of ten years. The OP was to supply regular information regarding these payments. However, in this case, the OP failed to do so and the amount of three instalments paid in respect of dwelling unit No. 1639/1 vide two cheques of Rs. 711 and Rs. 1,422 dated 9.12.86 and 4.4.86 respectively were found not traceable in the Bank statement for the relevant period. The Bank was, therefore, requested to verify the receipt of these payments vide letter dated 27.1.1998 (C -1). It has been stated that the cheques were not drawn at Punjab and Singh Bank, Sector 11, Chandigarh and the OP Bank had issued two credit certificates dated 24.10.1997 and 4.11.1997 certifying that a sum of Rs. 1,422 and Rs. 711 had been deposited in the account of the complainant CHB. Copies of these certificates are C -2 and C -3 of the complaint. However, these two amounts allegedly paid were not traceable in the Bank Account statement for the relevant period and when the Bank was requested to verify the receipt of these payments, OP Bank cancelled the credit certificates vide its letter dated 2.2.98 (C -4) and informed the allottee that the credit certificate issued be treated as cancelled. Since, the credit certificate earlier issued had been cancelled, the CHB/complainant did not issue No Due Certificate in respect of the said dwelling unit nor transferred its allotment in the name of Sh. Satish Uma Chand, husband and Legal Representative of the allottee on her death. Consequently, Sh. Satish Uma Chand had filed a consumer complaint dated 10.2.2000 before Consumer Forum, U.T., Chandigarh. The said complaint was decided vide order of District Forum dated 11.9.2003 against the complainant CHB and the OP Bank. The Board had thereafter filed an appeal before the State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.2.2004. The learned District Forum had held that the principal (complainant CHB) was liable for the deficiency on the part of its agent (OP Bank). It had further been held in the same order that the complainant CHB is justified in not issuing NOC for non -payment of ground rent of Rs. 1,267 but demand of Rs. 20,109 as interest and penal charges on unpaid instalments amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the complainant Board. It is also the case of the complainant Board that delay in payment occurred due to deficiency on the part of its agent i.e. the OP Bank and not due to negligence of the allottee and the complainant Board had charged penal interest amounting to Rs. 20,109 on account of non payment of the said instalment and did not issue NOC to the original allottee. The explanation given by the OP Bank to the complainant CHB was that the cheques in question were deposited by the allottee for credit in the complainant s account and were lodged in the clearing but returned unpaid on representation.

(3.) THE version of OP Bank is that the cause of action accrued to the complainant in February 1998 when Annexures C -2 and C -3 were cancelled vide Annexure C -3 and the present complaint had been filed after more than eight years and hence, the same is time barred. It has also been stated by the OP that Annexures C -2 and C -3 were not the credit certificates and the same were cancelled and the whole picture had been clarified vide Annexure C -4 dated 2.2.98. It has also been stated that as per RBI instructions, the Bank has to maintain the record for eight years and in the present case, the cheques in question were deposited in the year 1986 and the complainant CHB had moved an application for verifying the unpaid instalments in the year 1998 i.e. after the period of 12 years and it is the case of OPs that they did not have the complete record but with a motive to solve the dispute, transactions were checked from the ledger book.