GURGAON GRAMIN BANK Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision by Gurgaon Gramin Bank-opposite party is to the order dated 6.7.2009 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula dismissing appeal against the order dated 27.7,2005 of a District. Forum whereby bank was directed to release the amount of cheque bearing No. 131224 dated 7.5.2001 in the sum of Rs. 47,000 with interest 9% p.a. from the date of filing complaint, pay Rs. 2,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,100 as cost, to the respondent/complainant.

(2.) It is admitted case of the parties that respondent was having Saving Bank Account No. 4961 in Kanina Branch of the petitioner Bank. Respondent submitted cheque No. C/ GGB-131224 dated 7.5.2001 for withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 47,000 from the said SB Account but the amount was not released and Bank sent a memo with the remark 'lien against loan account No. 43/95 as coop'. Respondent alleged that On enquiry he was told by the Bank that he had given surety for one Hanuman about 10 years ago and Hanuman had not repaid the loan amount. Respondent denied that he ever gave surety for Hanuman as alleged. He further alleged that he did not receive any notice from the Bank for payment of the outstanding lean amount. Hanuman owns big chunk of land and Bank can recover the amount from him easily. Respondent alleged the Bank to be deficient in service. Complaint filed by the respondent before the District Forum was contested by filing written version by the petitioner-Bank. It was alleged that on 30 7.1990, the respondent had stood surety for Hanuman who was advanced loan of Rs. 15,000. Loan agreement and other documents were executed on which the respondent had put his signatures as surety for Hanuman. As on 8.5.2001 a sum of Rs. 39,480 was due towards loan amount. Respondent signed on balance confirmation letters from time to time. Respondent was given notice in connection with recovery of outstanding loan amount and Bank is entitled to recover it from the respondent. Both Hanuman and the respondent are jointly and severally liable to repay the loan with interest. Both the parties adduced documentary evidence. Though the District Forum returned the finding that respondent had stood surety for Hanuman and he had put signature on loan agreernent favouring the Bank in the capacity of surety on 30.7.1990, still on grounds of the Bank not having filed recovery suit against Hanuman and it havinig allowed interest to accumulate and not having appropriate the loan amount from the SB account of respondent in the year 1997/ when it was having sufficient balance, passed the said order dated 27.7.2005.

(3.) Submission advanced by Mr. R.S. Badhran for the respondent is two fold(i) respondent had not stood surety for Hanuman on 30.7.1990 as alleged; and (ii) petitioner Bank did not send notice to the respondent before appropriation of amount of Rs. 42,730 on 23.8.2001 from his Saving Bank A/c No. 4961. Along with Revision Petition the petitioner Bank has filed copies of loan agreement, dated 30.7.1990, confirmation letters dated 9.1.1994, 27.12.1996 and 9.11.1999bearing the signatures of respondent, notice dated 4.5.2001 sent by the Bank to Hanuman with copy to the respondent and letter of the respondent dated 2.5.2001 to the petitioner Bank for cancellation of co- obligancy owning to the facts in this letter. It is pertinent to note that in the letter dated 2.6.2001, the respondent has admitted that he had stood surety for the loan advanced to Hanuman. As noticed above, the District Forum has also returned finding of the respondent having stood surety for repayment of the loan of Rs. 15,000 advanced to Hanuman by the petitioner Bank. Respondent, thus, cannot be heard to say that he never stood surety for Hanuman. First limb of submission is, therefore, repelled being without any merit.