State Bank Of India vs Sanjeev Dureja

S.N.H. Zaidi, J

The instant application has been filed by the respondent seeking rectification of the order dated 2.8.2012 passed in the appeal to the extent that the appellant Bank be directed to issue two pay orders for Rs. 12,900/- each in his name. The concerned appeal ( No. 155/2012), filed by the Bank was restricted only to that portion of the order impugned dated 29.3.2012 of DRT-III, Delhi passed in S.A. No. 681/2011, whereby the Tribunal below had directed the respondent/applicant to pay Rs. 70,000/- as lump sum payment towards the enforcement and recovery fees/charges against the claim of Rs. 2.08 lacs of the Bank.

It is pertinent to note that the respondent/applicant had paid the entire amount of debt due on him along with Rs. 2,03,815/- towards expenses of the Bank, including recovery charges, etc. This Tribunal, vide order dated 2.8.2002, while disposing of the appeal, had modified the order impugned to the extent that instead of Rs. 70,000/- the appellant Bank was entitled to get Rs. 1,90,915/- towards the enforcement and recovery expenses incurred by it and the appellant Bank was directed to refund Rs. 12,900/- to the respondent.

The respondent/applicant has submitted that besides the payment of the outstanding amount of debt due on him, he had paid Rs. 2,03,815/- demanded by the Bank as he was in dire need of the title deed of the mortgaged property. He has further submitted that an amount of Rs. 12,900/- was further deposited by him in cash but it was not duly accounted for in the statement of account and this Tribunal, vide order dated 2.8.2012, had, accordingly, directed the Bank to refund the said amount, which was returned to him through pay order in the name of 'Sanjeev Dureja Textiles' whereas the account in the name of the said firm had since been closed with the closure of the firm and though the respondent had requested the Bank to issue the pay order in his name but the Bank did not agree to that. He has also submitted that though this Tribunal had directed for the refund of Rs. 12,900/- deposited by the respondent but not accounted for by the Bank, but that direction has been omitted to be mentioned in the order dated 2.8.2012, which needs rectification. According to him, he is entitled for the refund of two pay orders of Rs. 12,900/- each in his name.

Though the appellant/non-applicant Bank has not filed any formal reply to the application, but Mr. Manav has opposed the same.

I have heard Mr. Dureja, the applicant in person and Mr. Manav for the Bank and perused the record.

It appears that another application (IA No. 792/2012) has also been filed by the respondent/applicant with the prayer to consider the facts mentioned in that application while deciding the rectification application (M.C. No. 543/2012). Mr. Dureja has pointed out that after the final disposal of the appeal on 2.8.2012, he had requested the Bank on 30.8.2012 for the supply of the statement of accounts, etc. under the RTI Act and the Bank had provided him the copy of the statement of account along with a statement of calculation of interest, vide reply dated 29.9.2012. Though the respondent/applicant had raised objections qua certain entries of the statement of account, as pointed out by him in his subsequent application (I.A. No. 792/2012), but those entries cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of disposal of the instant application as the respondent has not challenged the order dated 29.3.2012 of the Tribunal below, whereby his S.A. was disposed of on the basis of the entries of the statement of account. After making the payment of the outstanding amount of debt due on him and the closure of the loan account by the Bank in full satisfaction, the objection relating to the entries cannot be entertained.

So far as the rectification of the order dated 2.8.2012 is concerned, Mr. Manav has submitted that in the statement of interest calculation supplied to the respondent, which is not a computer generated statement, the entry of Rs. 51,129.54 on 31.3.2012 has mistakenly been shown, as it was the amount of interest for the period 1.3.2012 to 17.3.2012 which became payable on 17.3.2012, when the borrower/respondent intended to clear off his dues. According to him, as per the interest calculation chart filed along with the appeal (page Nos. 46 to 48) an amount of Rs. 80,66,126.42 was due on 16.3.2012 against the respondent/applicant and on adding the aforesaid interest amount of Rs. 51,129.54 the total amount of debt dues was Rs. 81,17,255.96 (rounded off to Rs. 81,17,256/- ) and on further addition of Rs. 1,90,915/- towards enforcement and recovery expenses, the total sum arrived at was Rs. 83,08,171/-, which was deposited by the respondent/applicant on 17.3.2012 and the account was closed, but since a further sum of Rs. 12,900/- was deposited by the respondent/applicant in cash, therefore, the said amount was directed to be returned to the respondent/applicant, vide order dated 2.8.2012 and the Bank is ready to return the same to the respondent in his name. Mr. Manav, however, points out that besides the aforesaid payments, the respondent has not paid any other amount and though the amount of Rs. 12,900/- deposited in cash has been duly shown on 17.3.2012 in the statement of interest calculation supplied to the respondent, but a further amount of Rs. 51,12,954/- has also been mistakenly shown to have been deposited on 31.3.2012 whereas no such amount was deposited by the respondent/applicant and the said amount was already included in the closing balance amount of Rs. 83,08,171/- deposited by the respondent/applicant and as such the respondent/applicant is not entitled to the payment of Rs. 12,900/- twice.

The contention of Mr. Manav appears tenable as it finds support from the statements of accounts and as such the respondent/applicant cannot be allowed to receive Rs. 12,900/- twice, but only once. Let the amount of Rs. 12,900/- be returned to the respondent/applicant through a pay order in the name of Mr. Sanjeev Dureja. The application is accordingly disposed of.

Copy of this order be furnished to the parties as per law.