maintained by the opponent against the complainant. The loan was sanctioned on 21.06.2019 as per own admission of the opponent (whereas, complainant pleaded sanction of loan on 29.06.2019). The loan was repayable by way of monthly installment of Rs.15,126/- each. Complainant paid about 13 installments of the loan and ultimately, as per statement of account Ex.C2, on 17.09.2020, the complainant was in arrears of Rs.6,69,442/- and in order to discharge his total liability, the complainant filed an application Ex.C3 alongwith bank demand draft in the sum of Rs.6,83,146/- Ex.C4, but the opponent did not close his account and had not accepted the demand draft Ex.C4 and also failed to issue no objection certificate in favour of the complainant and also failed to release his property from the mortgage, which according to the complainant was an act of negligence, deficiency in service, causing him mental agony, harassment, financial loss, constraining him to file this complaint.

3. On receipt of notice of the complaint, in its written statement, the opponent has not disputed the version of the complainant to the extent of filing of application Ex.C3 alongwith bank draft Ex.C4, but denied the allegation of the complainant qua any act of negligence, deficiency in service on the ground, on 31.08.2020, after the expiry of the period of 12 months from the date of sanction of loan i.e. 21.06.2019, the complainant applied for foreclosure of the loan. The opponent had requested to him to sign the necessary documents in order to complete the process of foreclosure of loan and also to pay the interest as per the

2

terms and conditions mentioned in the sanction letter and the loan agreement (none of the party brought on record sanction letter and loan agreement). The complainant did not pay any heed to the request of the opponent bank and filed the false complaint. After completing all the required formalities, the loan account of the complainant was closed on 06.10.2020 and no dues certificate vide letter dated 12.10.2020 Ex.C3 was issued in favour of the complainant, but he (complainant) refused to accept the NDC.

4. In order to substantiate his version, complainant kept reliance upon documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8.

5. The opponent, in order to substantiate defence version, kept reliance upon the documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.

6. Sh. Sunil Kamboj, Ld. Counsel for the complainant, in the course of arguments, reiterated to the version made into the complaint and apprised the Commission about the evidence adduced on record by the complainant i.e. documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8

7. Sh. Ritesh Goel, Ld. Counsel for the opponent in his marathon arguments, reiterated to the version made into the written statement and he also apprised the Commission about the evidence adduced on record by the complainant as well as opponent i.e. documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.

8. After hearing the ld. Counsel for the parties and baring the anatomy of pleading of both the parties and documents placed on record by both the

3

parties, the moot question before this Commission is whether the opponent committed any act of negligence, deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice, making the complainant entitled to the relief, as prayed or to what extent?

9. Admittedly, the complainant on 31.08.2020 filed an application Ex.C3 with the opponent making prayer to foreclose his loan account. On 17.09.2020, the loan amount in the sum of Rs.6,69,442/- was outstanding against the complainant in favour of the opponent. The complainant alongwith application Ex.C3 also attached demand draft in the sum of Rs.6,83,146/- Ex.C4 in favour of the opponent and the opponent in Para No.5 of the written statement admitted receipt of demand draft Ex.C4 dated 17.09.2020 from the complainant and also admitted its non acceptance on the ground, the complainant issued the demand draft dated 17.09.2020 Ex.C4 in favour of the opponent bank without foreclosure request letter submitting to the opponent bank. The complaint was instituted on 25.09.2020 and at the time of filing of complaint, the complainant filed an application before the Commission for interim relief making prayer to give direction to the opponent to accept the demand draft dated 17.09.2020 Ex.C4. The prayer of the complainant was allowed by this Commission vide order dated 28.09.2020 and in compliance of order dated 28.09.2020, the opponent accepted the demand draft Ex.C4 from the complainant on 01.10.2020, fact is not disputed. The version made by the opponent in the written statement is self contradictory. In

4

Para No.2 of the written statement, on merit, the opponent admitted the loan account was joint in the name of complainant and his wife Monika. In para No.5 of the written statement, the opponent admitted the receipt of application Ex.C3 for foreclosure of loan account alongwith demand draft dated 17.09.2020 Ex.C4 and in the same paragraph in the last two lines from bottom to top, the opponent stated the complainant issued demand draft dated 17.09.2020 Ex.C4 to the opponent bank without foreclosure request letter to the opponent bank. Whereas, in application Ex.C3, it has clearly been mentioned the complainant intended to foreclose his loan account. Assuming, as stated by the opponent that in order to complete the necessary formalities, the complainant refused to sign certain documents. Then, the question arises, why the opponent failed to accept the demand draft in the sum of Rs.6,83,146/- Ex.C4. When the opponent has received entire outstanding loan amount, it was bound to close the loan account even if, there was no request from the complainant regarding this. There was no justification on the part of the opponent to deny the acceptance of demand draft Ex.C4, it from the facts of the case is clear. It mean, the bank was bent on to harass the complainant with the intension to cause him financial loss and for the purpose of earning more interest on the loan amount. The opponent accepted the demand draft Ex.C4 by the order of this Commission on 01.10.2020 and thereafter, after receiving the installment in the month of October, 2020, the opponent issued NDC vide letter No.UJJ/OPS/3883/2021 dated 12.10.2020 Ex.R3

5

in favour of the complainant. During the course of argument, complainant brought on record Ex.C8 dated 10.08.2020, which also proves the loan account of complainant was closed on 07.10.2020. The contents of this letter have not been disputed by the counsel for the opponent except its date. The date 10.08.2020 Ex.C8 appears to be a typographical mistake and it is established on the record the loan account of the complainant has been closed on 07.10.2020.

10. The non-acceptance of the demand draft dated 17.09.2020 Ex.C4 from the complainant by the opponent is an act of negligence, deficiency in service to earn more interest on the loan amount and it was accepted on 01.10.2020 by the opponent only after passing order dated 28.09.2020 by this Commission. The non-acceptance of demand draft Ex.C4 promptly by the opponent with malafide intension to earn interest also amounts to unfair as well as restrictive trade practice on its part. Refusing to accept repayment of debts on payment of applicable penalty also amount to unfair contract. The act of gross negligence, deficiency in service, on the part of the opponent caused mental agony, harassment, financial loss and constrained him to file the complaint, for it, the opponent deserved to be burdened with punitive damages to compensate the complainant in all heads such as mental agony, financial loss, harassment, cost of litigation and this Commission is of the firm view, in case, punitive damages in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only awarded against the opponent to compensate the complainant in all heads, it will suffice the purpose

6

and end of justice will meet. Apart from it, the opponent bank is also liable to be punished for its act of unfair and restrictive trade practices. This Commission is of the firm view, in case, punitive damages to punish the opponent so that in future, it should not commit any such unfair, restrictive trade practice and this Commission is of the firm view, in case, punitive damages in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only are awarded against the opponent to punish then, it will suffice the purpose and end of justice will meet.

11. Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, complaint is accepted, holding the opponent liable to make payment of punitive damages in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), to the complainant to compensate him in all heads. Apart from it, the opponent is also burdened with penalty in the form of punitive damages for its act of unfair, restrictive trade practices, in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and the amount of this Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) shall go into the head of Consumer Legal Aid Account Yamuna Nagar. The opponent bank is directed to make payment of punitive damages in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the complainant within the period of 30 (Thirty) days from the date of order and further deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) in the head of Consumer Legal Aid Account Yamuna Nagar within the period of 30 (Thirty) days from the date of order, in default of it, the total amount mentioned under both the heads (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.25,000/- =

7

Rs.75,000/-) shall carry on simple interest @8% per annum from the date of order till its actual realization. The opponent is also directed to return the title deeds or sale deed to the complainant qua the property mentioned in the Para No. D(d) of the written statement within the period of 30 days from the date of the order.

12. Before parting with this order, it is pertinent to mention here that the complaint has not been decided within the prescribed period of limitation of time. History of proceedings show, second wave of COVID-19 became stumbling block in the timely disposal of the complaint. Apart from it, there is a shortage of manpower in the Commission such as Clerks and Stenos as well as requisite infrastructure.

13. File be consigned to the records. Dated: 28.06.2022.

(Gulab Singh)

District & Sessions Judge (VRS) (Geeta Parkash) (Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav) President, Lady Member. (Member). DCDRC, YNR.

Typed by: Jitender Sharma, Steno.

8