ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH Date of Institution : 19.07.2022 Date of Reserve : 27.02.2024 Date of Decision : 02.04.2024

1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Pacca College Road, Branch Barnala through its Branch Manager.

2. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., SCO 116-117, New Leela Bhawan, Patiala through its Manager/ Authorized Signatory.

…..Appellants/Opposite parties Versus

1. M/s B.L.Castings, Raikot Road, VPO Amla Singh Wala, Tehsil and District Barnala a partnership firm.

2. Gaurav Goyal son of Ram Krishan Goyal resident of Green Avenue, Barnala partner of M/s B.L.Castings.

3. Aseem Goyal son of Ram Krishan Goyal resident of Green Avenue, Barnala partner of M/s B.L.Castings.

4. Sushil Tayal son of Radhey Shyam Tayal resident of H.No.3416, Sector 71, SAS Nagar, (Mohali) partner of M/s B.L.Castings.

….Respondents/Complainants.

5. Axis Bank Ltd., Branch Dhanaula through its Branch Manager.

….Proforma respondent/proforma opposite party First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 27.05.2022 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Barnala.

Quorum:-

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

For the appellants : Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate For respondents No.1 to 4 : Sh.Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate For respondent No.5 : Ex-parte HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/opposite parties- Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Anr. against the order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Barnala (in short ‘District Commission’) whereby the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short ‘the Act’) was partly allowed and passed the following order against opposite parties No.1 & 2:

“16. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties No.1 & 2. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 are directed to release the title deeds/property documents and No Due Certificate to the complainant firm pertaining to above said accounts. However, the opposite parties No.1 & 2 can take outstanding amounts if any of the above said accounts before releasing the title deeds/property documents and No Due Certificate to the complainant except subsidy amount. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,500/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant…”

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

2. In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant firm M/s B.L.Casting is a partnership firm and is carrying the business of M.S.Steel etc. and is registered by the Registrar of Firms & Societies, Punjab. The complainant-firm obtained a CC Limit/Overdraft facilities/Term Loans from opposite parties No.1 & 2, which was granted by the Bank by pledging of original title deeds/properties and by creating charge upon the said properties. The complainant – firm further required some facility from opposite parties No.1 & 2, which was denied by them. Thereafter, the complainant – firm moved to Axis Bank Ltd. and shifted his credit facility to Axis Bank Ltd., who remitted the funds to opposite parties No.1 & 2 – Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. to the full and final satisfaction of opposite parties No.1 & 2. It is also submitted that the outstanding amount against MSME Loan account was paid by the complainant-firm from his own pocket and in this way the entire outstanding amount of opposite parties No.1 & 2 was paid but despite receiving the full payment the opposite parties No.1 & 2 lingering on the matter on one pretext or other and did not release the original title deeds and also not issued ‘No Due Certificate’ Number of e-mails were sent by the complainant-firm with the request