STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Date of Admission : 20.05.2024 Date of Final Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.01.2026 SC/5/A/165/2015 Punjab National Bank Head office at 7 Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110607 Branch office at Village – Sulatanpur P.O. Khas, Tehsil & Dist. Haridwar Through its Branch Manager Sh. B.N. Pal S/o Sh. Mathura Prasad (Through: Sh. R.S. Bajwa, Advocate)

…..Appellant VERSUS Sh. Mohsin S/o Sh. Nazeer R/o Village – Sulatanpur P.O. Khas, Tehsil & District Haridwar …..None for Respondent Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. C.M. Singh, Member

ORDER

(Per: Mr. C.M. Singh, Member):

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 18.07.2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 221 of 2012 styled as Mohsin vs. Punjab National Bank, wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed by cancelling the notices issued by the Bank for recovery of loan amount. The opposite party is directed to recover Rs. 1,60,000/- in 04 installments till 31 December, 2014 (first installment on dated 31.08.2014, second installment on dated 15.10.2014, third installment on dated 16.11.2014 and fourth installment on dated 31.12.2014). If any installment is not paid before the due date, then the opposite party Bank is entitled to get balance amount in one installment.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant has availed a loan of Rs. 3,94,000/- in the year 2007 from the opposite party – Punjab National Bank for the purchase of tractor. On the same day, after completing all necessary formalities, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 2 Lakh into the loan account. The complainant was thereafter required to deposit the balance amount in the installments, however the Bank failed to properly update his passbook, due to which he was unable to deposit the remaining installments within the stipulated time. As a result, the Bank’s record continued to reflect the loan amount as Rs. 3,94,000/- and a recovery notice was issued showing an outstanding of amount of Rs. 3,35,478/-. Despite making enquires with the Bank, the complainant did not receive any satisfactory explanation, which constrained the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Commission.

3. In the written statement of the opposite party, it has been contended that the complaint is based on the incorrect facts. That the complainant failed to deposit the loan amount within the stipulated time. It is, therefore, stated that the recovery notices issued by the answering opposite party is lawfully and valid, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Commission after hearing both the parties and after taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record, has passed the impugned judgment and order dated 18.07.2014 wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed in the above terms.

5. Having been aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the District Commission, an appeal has been preferred by the opposite party –

Bank as appellant.

6. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has stated that the District Commission has failed to consider the fact that there is neither cause of action nor merit in the complaint against the appellant and as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed. That the respondent – complainant has concealed the material facts and has filed the complaint on the basis of false facts. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and complaint is not legally maintainable before the Commission below. The District Commission does not have any jurisdiction in the matter of loan and recovery cases. The appellant is not a juristic person and cannot be sued in its name and complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground only. In t