Punjab and Sind Bank vs BALBIR SINGH

IT is an appeal againt the order dated 12.2.2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that respondent No. 1-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had purchase a Bajaj Chetak scooter from the Bhakhra Service Station Private Ltd., Ropar (opposite party No. 2 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called opposite party No. 2) on securing loan from the appellant (opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called the appellant). The complainant had been paying the instalments towards loan to the appellant regularly as settled. He got insured the said scooter with respondent No. 2 (opposite party No. 3 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called opposite party No. 3), which bore registration No. PB-12-E-050. The scooter met with an accident on 16.7.2001 on which some of its parts were damaged. On request made opposite party No. 2 replaced the damaged parts against cash payment of Rs. 3,986/- and that opposite party No. 3 on lodging of claim made payment of Rs. 3,882/- through cheque not to the complainant but to the appellant who got it encashed and hence the complainant remained bereft of the same for which he was otherwise had full legal right, more particularly when he had spent on the repairs after borrowing money from other sources and not by the appellant. Appellant in their written reply before the District Forum stated as under: "Complainant borrowed Rs. 20,000/- on 19.5.2000 as scooter loan from it and the same was to be repaid in monthly instalments of Rs. 750/- each with interest in 36 instalments commencing from June, 2000. The said scooter has been hypothecated in its favour. Complainant has not been regular in paying the instalments as above, so much so, even the first instalment of loan was repaid on 4.9.2000 which otherwise was required to be made in the month of June, 2000. He even failed to repay the instalments due in November 2000, April 2001, May, 2001 and hence he was in arrears of instalments and that arrears had swelled to Rs. 1,600/- on the date on which above referred amount of Rs. 3,882/- was credited in his account. Cheque for Rs. 3,882/- as above was validly issued by opposite party No. 3 in its favour crediting the same in the account of the complainant. Complainant, otherwise, has not demanded surplus amount of the cheque after crediting the arrears of the instalments. There is, thus, no deficiency in service on its part."

Opposite party No. 3 in a separate reply before the District Forum stated as under: "It had issued cheque for Rs. 3,882/- in the name of the complainant and the same had been sent to the financing Bank for crediting the same in the account of the complainant. Since the scooter which met with accident was a primary security of the financier Bank for recovery of the loan amount and the same has been hypothecated with opposite party No. 1 and hence as per rules and policy conditions, the Insurance was for the benefit of the complainant as well as the financing Bank and that is why the amount said above had been remitted to opposite party No. 1 for crediting the same in the account of the complainant and hence, there is no deficiency in service on its part."

Opposite Party No. 3 raised various preliminary objections, namely, that (i) the complaint was not maintainable against it; (ii) District Forum had got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; (iii) the complaint was not maintainable there being no deficiency in service on its part.

OPPOSITE Party No. 2 though appeared before the District Forum through Shri B.K. Sharma, Manager at the initial stage but later on opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against ex parte. The complainant in the rejoinder to reply by the appellant controverted the stand taken in the reply filed and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint. In the rejoinder to the reply filed by opposite party No. 3 specifically in Para No. 9 on merits that he had grudge against opposite party No. 3.

AFTER hearing the Counsels for the parties, the complaint was allowed with costs of Rs. 500/- against the appellant with the following directions: "(1) to give credit of Rs. 2,282/- in Savings Bank account of the complainant with it as on 26.7.2001; (2) to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation."

Hence this appeal filed by the opposite party No. 1. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant and Shri Balbir Singh complainant in person and have gone through the record as well as impugned order of the District Forum. While holding the appellant as deficient in service, the District Forum has held as under : "8. Now, we would like to advert to the cause of the complainant pleaded against opposite party No. 1. It is not disputed by now that above referred sum of Rs. 3,882/- was credited in the loan account of the complainant 26.7.2001 on which date sum of Rs. 1,600/- to the maximum was due against the complainant. If need be, reference may be made in this context to statement of account, photostat whereof is Ex.R-7 and para No. 3 of the written reply on facts as filed by opposite party No. 1, duly supported by affidavit of Shri Surjit Singh, Sr. Manager Ex. R-6. Act of opposite party No. 1 in debiting above said entire amount of Rs. 3,882/- in loan account against due amount of Rs. 1,600/- only, thus, cannot be said to be justified even remotely and naturally leading to deficiency in service. As such, it also cannot be said that complaint is not maintainable or that there is no deficiency in service or that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as pleaded by opposite party No. 1 by way of raising preliminary objections and hence, preliminary objections taken in the reply filed by it are simply negatived.

Question that now arises is as to what relief should be granted to the complainant under the circumstances. Since O.P. No. 1 debited sum of Rs. 3,882/- against due amount of Rs. 1,600/- as above there is a case for direction to it to give credit of the balance i.e., Rs. 2,282/- (Rs. 3,882/- minus Rs. 1,600/-) in Savings Bank account of the complainant with it as on 26.7.2001 (the date on which the amount of Rs. 3,882/- was debited). Since there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No. 1 as held above, there is also a case for direction to it to pay compensation which may fairly be assessed at Rs. 1,000/-. Held accordingly. We also find support for this view taken from the authority in case J. Radhakrishnan v. A. Basheera & Anr., 2001 (2) CLT 225, wherein it was held that award of compensation always involves some sort of speculation and it is very difficult to quantify the amount of compensation on a rationale basis."

WE have minutely gone through the order of the District Forum and the findings against the appellant. WE do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. It is an admitted case that a sum of Rs. 3,882/- was credited in the loan account of the complainant on 26.7.2001 on which date sum of Rs. 1,600/- to the maximum was due against the complainant. Action of the appellant in debiting the entire amount of Rs. 3,882/- in loan account against due amount of Rs. 1,600/- only was, thus, not justified. A direction has rightly been given by the District Forum to the appellant to give credit of Rs. 2,282/- (Rs. 3,882/- minus Rs. 1,600/-) in Savings Bank Account of the complainant. Finding no flaw with the order of the District Forum, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.