STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 12.07.2022 Reserved on : 29.08.2024 Date of Decision : 17.09.2024 IndusInd Bank Limited, Gurudwara Chowk Branch through its Branch Manager ….Appellant/Opposite Party Versus Jagtar Singh aged about 42 years son of Darbara Singh, resident of Village Gharangana, Tehsil and District Mansa.

.…Respondent/Complainant First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Parminder Singh, Advocate For the respondent: None.

VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :

Appellant/Opposite Party i.e. IndusInd Bank Ltd., has filed the present Appeal through its Branch Manager to challenge the impugned order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mansa (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant-Jagtar Singh has been Partly Allowed.

2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondent/Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that Amrik Singh and Parghat Singh had purchased TATA LPT Trolla (Truck) bearing Registration No.PB03Y-6196 by availing Loan of Rs.10,50,000/- from the OP-Bank. For the same they had entered into Loan Agreement No. PBM00339D dated 15.12.2015 with OP. Said Loanees had failed to adhere the schedule of loan installments but committed defaults in repaying the loan amount. On this, OP had repossessed the said Trolla as the same was mortgaged under the said loan agreement. Thereafter, the OP had sold the same to the Complainant-Jagtar Singh for an amount of Rs.6,40,000/-. The OP had also supplied the copy of the Special Power of Attorney dated 06.09.2017 issued by Amrik Singh in favour of Jagtar Singh and Forms No.29 and 30. OP-Bank had also given the copy of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question issued in the name of Amrik Singh.

4. The Complainant-Jagtar Singh had repaid all the loan installments of the said Trolla standing in the name of Amrik Singh to the OP. The Complainant had also obtained loan account statement from the OPs, wherein the loan status was shown as ‘closed’. Thereafter, the Complainant had applied with the OP for issuance of No Objection Certificate as the loan amount against the said Trolla had been paid successfully. The OPs had refused to issue the same on the ground that Amrik Singh was defaulter in some other loan account, in which an amount of Rs.1,01,300/- was outstanding against him. They had averred that as the said vehicle had been standing in his name, therefore, they were unable to issue the NOC. Under the pressure of the OP, the Complainant had also paid another outstanding amount of Rs.1,01,300/- against Amrik Singh, relating to some other loan as the OPs had threatened him to repossess the vehicle in question. After that the Complainant again approached the OP for issuance of the NOC of the Trolla in question but now the OP had taken another stand and refused to issue the NOC. OP- Bank told the Complainant that as Amrik Singh was guarantor in the loan obtained by one Daljit Singh from it, who had committed default in repayment of loan, therefore, the Bank had not issued the NOC till the repayment of said dues cleared by Daljit Singh or the Complainant. The Complainant told the OP that neither he knew Daljit Singh nor he was guarantor of Daljit Singh. Upon it, the OP flatly refused to issue him NOC. By the