ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH Date of Institution : 22.02.2023 Date of Reserve : 26.05.2025 Date of Decision : 26.06.2025

1. Rajesh Vidi, Manager, Punjab National Bank (previously Oriental Bank of Commerce), Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar, presently Punjab National Bank, Old Railway Road, Jalandhar, Punjab.

2. Surinder Nath Nagar, Ex.Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, now Punjab National Bank, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar, presently Punjab National Bank, Old Railway Road, Jalandhar, Punjab, through opposite party No.1.

3. Harvinder Singh Randhawa, Ex.Chief Manager, Regional Office, Oriental Bank of Commerce, now Punjab National Bank, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar, presently Punjab National Bank, Old Railway Road, Jalandhar, Punjab through opposite party No.1.

4. Oriental Bank of Commerce, now Punjab National Bank, Bhagat Chowk, Jalandhar, presently Punjab National Bank, Old Railway Road, Jalandhar, Punjab through its Manager.

….Appellants/Opposite parties Versus

1. Manjinder Singh aged about 56 years S/o L.Ajit Singh, R/o

249/28, Sodal Road Shiv Nagar, Jalandhar.

2. Harjeet Kaur aged about 53 years w/o Manjinder Singh, R/o

249/28, Sodal Road, Shiv Nagar, Jalandhar.

….Respondents/Complainants First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 06.01.2023 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar.

Quorum:-

Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Mrs.Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-

For the appellants : Sh.Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate For the respondents : Sh.D.S.Bal, Advocate HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/opposite parties- Rajesh Vidi, Manager & Ors. against the order dated 06.01.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (in short ‘District Commission’), whereby the complaint filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘the Act’) was partly allowed and opposite parties were directed to declare and consider the account of the complainant regular since the day of declaring the account as NPA in the year 2013. They were further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation including litigation expenses.

It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

2. Briefly stated facts of the complaint are that the complainant raised a housing loan from opposite party No.4 for Rs.13,00,000/- in the month of April, 2007, which is to be repaid in 180 months with moratorium of 12 months i.e. in 168 EMI @ Rs.13827/- w.e.f. 31.05.2008 by mortgaging the residence at 249/28, Sodal Road, Shiv Nagar, Jalandhar i.e. total amount payable from 31.05.2008 to 30.04.2022 Rs.23,22,936/-. The complainants were making the regular monthly installments of loan as and when due. It is submitted that during the moratorium period, the borrowers are not bound to make the payment of installment but the complainant in good faith deposited more than Rs.1,13,000/- approximate. In this way, the complainants have made more than Rs.22,00,000/-. It is alleged that opposite parties No.2 & 3 without assigning any reason knowingly with bad intention has classified the account of the complainants as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in the year 2013 and obtained a false and frivolous ex-parte decree from the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh. The decree was obtained by opposite parties No.2 & 3 by giving false affidavit, which was not in the knowledge of the complainants and it came into the knowledge of the complainants in the month of January, 2021 during the proceedings of civil case filed by the complainants against opposite party No.4. In the month of January, 2021, after coming to know about the decree, the complainants visited opposite party No.1 and requested to make the above said account regular and also for classifying the account as non-NPA but the opposite part