RAM KISHORE TIWARI Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. , Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as District Forum-I, for short], dated 12.7.2004 in Complaint Case No.620 of 2003: Sh. Tejinder Singh V/s. Chief Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank and Another.

(2.) Briefly the complaint is that the complainant stood as a guarantor for one Sh. Amrik singh, who had secured a car loan. The said loan was secured by way of the hypothecation of the car purchased i. e. , Zen Car bearing Registration No. CH-01-W-8774. The said Sh. Amrik Singh failed to pay the loan instalments regularly and the loan was declared as N. P. A. account. It is averred that the complainant, as per Reserve Bank of India instructions, offered a proposal to the Bank on behalf of Sh. Amrik Singh in which it was agreed to make the payment of the loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as full and final settlement of the entire loan amount under the N. P. A. scheme. The O. P. Bank asked the complainant to deposit Rs. one lac as fixed deposit with the Bank to indicate that the complainant was really serious in his offer to settle the car loan account. Accordingly the complainant deposited Rs. one lac on 29.10.2001 in the said Bank in the shape of an FDR and asked the O. Ps. to adjust the instalments already paid out of loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and also informed the Bank that the balance amount will be paid by the loanee. The Bank however showed Rs.2,95,486/- as the amount outstanding against the loan account as on 30.4.2003. Since the Bank did not agree to settle the loan account under the N. P. A. scheme as proposed by the complainant, he asked the Bank to refund the amount of Rs. one lac that was got deposited by him, conditionally on refundable basis in case the proposal was not acceptable. It is alleged that the Bank is neither refunding the amount nor it is settling the loan account under N. P. A. scheme and they illegally want to adjust this amount of Rs. one lac against some other loan received by one Smt. Gurpreet Kaur wife of Sh. Bhupinder Singh, which has got nothing to do with the car loan under reference. This complaint has been instituted by the complainant alleging that O. Ps. have not rendered proper service to the complainant and that they were deficient in all respects resulting in mental and physical harassment of the complainant and the complainant prays for refund of Rs. one lac deposited as F. D. R. with interest upto date and payment of Rs.50,000/- for unnecessary harassment and humiliation besides costs of litigation as well as any other relief deemed fit.

(3.) In response the O. Ps. version is that a sum of Rs.2,48,000/- was taken on loan by Sh. Amrik Singh on 23.12.1997. He was to pay interest @ 17.5% per annum and the payment was to be made in monthly instalments of Rs.4,800/- each. The complainant as well as loanee's wife Smt. Baljit Kaur stood surety for the said loan. The loanee defaulted in payment and on 29.9.2001 visited the Bank with a request that his case for lumpsum payment be viewed sympathetically and he be granted rebate in payment of the loan amount. However, it is denied by the Bank that the loan account at that time was N. P. A. and that Rs. one lac in the shape of F. D. R. was given to fulfil any condition of the Bank. It is further stated that as on 29.10.2002 debit balance of the loan account was Rs.3,11,593/- and the complainant deposited the said F. D. R. As per his own instructions, the bank marked its lien on the F. D. R. The complainant did request for rebate on the loan amount but he was told that the rebate is granted strictly as per the policy and guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. It is denied that the Bank ever agreed to accept Rs.2,50,000/- as offered by the complainant for adjustment of the total loan amount of Rs.3,11,593/-. The Bank however forwarded the rebate proposal of the complainant to their Zonal Office but the same rejected on 5.3.2002 by that office on the ground that the case did into fall into N. P. A. category as on 31.3.2002. It is further stated that the loanee was asked to make the payment of the outstanding amount and upon his failure to do so the Bank after serving demand notice dated 20.6.2002 on the complainant, exercised its right to set off and adjust the proceeds of the aforesaid F. D. towards adjustment of the loan account. It is averred that as the principal borrower and the complainant have defaulted towards repayment of the Bank loan and they had failed to respond to the deand as well as legal notices and, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O. P. Bank.