CANARA BANK Vs. JAIN MOTOR TRADING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal has been filed by Canara Bank, Opposite Party before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Appellant herein being aggrieved by the order of that Commission which had allowed the complaint of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice made against it by M/s Jain Motor Trading Company, Respondent herein and Original Complainant before the State Commission.

(2.) In his complaint before the State Commission, Respondent/Complainant had contended that he had bank account no. 184 with Appellant/Bank from the early 1970s which it was operating regularly. Since Respondent/Complainant felt need of an OCC account, it requested for the same to the Appellant/Bank, who converted their above account into an OCC account after the Respondent/Complainant had duly complied with the various formalities to open such a account, which included mortgaging his property at Kashmere Gate as collateral security against the said Account. This facility continued without any problems till 2004 when due to certain unavoidable reasons, Respondent/Complainant was unable to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.51.84 Lakhs as on September, 2004 to Appellant/Bank and, therefore, the OCC account was declared as NPA by the Appellant/Bank on 31.10.2004 vide its letter dated 28.02.2005. However, with a view to settle the issue Respondent/Complainant entered into One Time Settlement (OTS) with Appellant/Bank, according to which a sum of Rs.4 Lakhs (apart from Rs.1 Lakh already deposited) was to be paid immediately and the balance sum of Rs.47 Lakhs was to be deposited within 6 months from the date of issue of that letter and if this amount was deposited within 90 days then no interest was to be charged. In case it was deposited thereafter, then interest at PLR(s) was to be charged till clearance. In terms of the OTS, Respondent/Complainant started making the payments and requested Appellant/Bank for extension of time by another 6 months. However, despite this, Appellant/Bank cancelled the OTS on the grounds of non-payment. Appellant/Bank, however, accepted the money tendered Respondent/Complainant thereafter which amounted to extension of time to clear the dues. Further, as per verbal assurances given by the officials of Appellant/Bank, the time had been extended upto 25.06.2008 by which time the entire amount of Rs.52 Lakhs was paid. Respondent/Complainant thereafter approached Appellant/Bank to get back the property documents in respect of the mortgaged property, which Appellant/Bank refused to return on the ground that certain dues towards interest were still to be paid and raised an illegal demand of Rs.22,46,005/- in this respect. Being aggrieved, Respondent filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and requested that Appellant/Bank be directed to release the documents of mortgaged property to him with compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs towards inconvenience, mental agony and harassment and further Rs.5 Lakhs by way of damages.

(3.) Appellant/Bank on being served filed a written rejoinder before the State Commission denying that there was any deficiency in service. It was contended that Appellant/Bank was fully justified in not releasing the documents of mortgaged property since there was a clear violation of the OTS. It was specifically stated that the terms and conditions under the OTS were as follows :