PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. MOHAN LAL BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal received by transfer from Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 13.5.2002 in complaint case No.249 of 17.4.2001, Sh. Mohan Lal Bansal, Advocate v. Punjab National Bank.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the complainant is that his NSCs bearing No.07EE1510197 to 07EE150198 for Rs.10,000 each dated 22.12.1994 were lying with the OP/Punjab National Bank against his OD Account No.739 and the same had matured on 22.12.2000. The complainant, it was alleged, requested the OP Bank to release the above said NSCs, vide letter dated 23.12.2000 as well as registered notice dated 12.2.2001 but the same were not released by the OP Bank. Alleging this act on the part of OP Bank as deficiency in service, the complainant had filed this complaint seeking direction to the OP Bank to release the NSCs and also prayed for compensation on account of mental agony and harassment suffered at the hands of the OP Bank.

(3.) THE version of OP Bank is that the complaint had been filed by the complainant with mala fide intention as he had concealed the true facts. The OP Bank had admitted the averment regarding the NSCs still lying with it, which had matured on 22.12.2000. The OP Bank had pleaded that it had already marked the loan account of the complainant, in which the NSCs had been pleaded, a lien and the complainant had been duly informed of the same. It was next asserted that the complainant was a guarantor in a suit titled as Punjab National Bank v. M/s Ranu Papers and Converters for recovery of Rs.1,77,730, which was pending adjudication before the Civil Court and the complainant was also a party to that suit. As per the OP Bank, it had a right to set off and the same could be exercised in case of partners having their personal account as well as firm account and also in case of personal account of guarantor. The OP further pleaded that the complainant was a guarantor and his wife was a partner in the said firm and both are jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding amount of the OP Bank in the suit pending, as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement as well as guarantee deed executed between the parties including the complainant in favour of OP Bank. The amount of NSCs, it was pleaded by the OP Bank, could not be released to the complainant and there was no illegality and deficiency in service on the part of OP, as alleged by the complainant.