PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. MUKHTIAR SINGH AND ORS.
LAWS(PUNCDRC)-2014-12-1
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on December 24,2014

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Appellant
VERSUS
Mukhtiar Singh And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Gurdev Singh, J. (President) - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant/opposite party No. 1 against the order dated 20.2.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by Mukhtiar Singh, complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was partly allowed and opposite party No. 1 was directed to afford appropriate credits for all the unauthorized loan recovery debits affected in the complainant's account with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the dates of the respective deposits to the date of actual reversals and to pay Rs. 5,000, as compensation and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation. The complainant alleged, in his complaint, that he is an ex -serviceman and is leading a retired life. He is having one account in opposite party No. 1 -Bank and is receiving his monthly pension in that account every month. He came to know that the Bank illegally, unauthorizedly, unlawfully, without his prior approval and in a secret and clandestine manner and without service of any prior information/notice started deducting and withdrawing the amount of his pension from his account and crediting the same towards the loan account of opposite party No. 2 -Ravail Singh, who had allegedly taken the loan from the Bank. Opposite party No. 2 is alive having sound property, which is mortgaged with the Bank and it can auction the same for the recovery of that loan amount and in the first instance it is opposite party No. 2, who is legally bound to repay that amount. He served a legal notice dated 13.2.2013 upon the Bank but still it is adamant to take the amount of his pension from his account. He and his family depends upon that pension and on account of the deduction thereof in an illegal manner, they are on the verge of starvation. It is the principal debtor, who is bound to pay the loan amount. He made a prayer in the complaint for directing opposite party No. 1 to deposit all the deducted amounts in his account with interest with a further direction to opposite party No. 2 to deposit the loan amount with further direction to opposite party No. 1 to put his mortgaged property to sale/auction.
(2.) THE complaint was contested by opposite party No. 1, who filed written reply before the District Forum. In the written reply it admitted that the complainant is having an account in the Bank and that in respect of the loan advanced by it to opposite party No. 2, it is withdrawing the amounts from the said account and crediting the same in the loan account. It also admitted that opposite party No. 2 was the principal debtor, who failed to pay the loan amount. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, it pleaded that no amount was ever withdrawn from the account of the complainant illegally and the same is being withdrawn as authorized by the complainant himself, vide Clauses 15(2), (3) and 21(6) of the Agreement of Guarantee dated 28.4.2007, which was duly executed by him in favour of the Bank. As per that Agreement, it has lien on all the moneys standing to the credit of the complainant. The complainant himself had agreed that the Bank may enforce the guarantee without enforcing, selling or realizing any of the securities kept under lien, hypothecation, etc. The complainant being the guarantor is jointly and severally responsible to repay the amount of loan obtained by opposite party No. 2. The legal notice so served by the complainant was duly replied by it informing that the Bank has already invoked the guarantee given by him. There was no negligence on its part and rather, the complainant was negligent as he failed to fulfil the conditions of the agreement of guarantee. It prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs. Opposite party No. 2 did not appear before the District Forum in spite of his service and was proceeded against ex parte.
(3.) BOTH the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned Counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.