AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These revision petitions arise out of similar order of State Commission and are decided by one common order.
Revision Petition No. 1928 of 2012 has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1360 of 2011 - The Haryana State Co-op. Hsg. Fed. Ltd. Vs. Amrit Lal & Ors. and order dated 9.11.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1394 of 2011 - The Haryana State Co-op. Hsg. Fed. Ltd. Vs. Saluchi Devi by which, while allowing appeals, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.
Brief facts of the cases are that Complainant/petitioner Amrit Lal obtained loan of Rs.80,000/- and Saluchi Devi obtained loan of Rs.60,000/- from OP No. 3/Respondent No.3 which loan was sanctioned by OP No. 1/Respondent No.1. This amount was payable in quarterly installments within 20 years. Mortgage deed was executed between complainant and OP No. 3 and it was registered at Panchkula. It was further submitted that OP No. 1 was charging 15% compound interest instead of 15% simple interest and complainant Amrit Lal deposited Rs.60,000/- against loan of Rs.80,000/- and Saluchi Devi deposited Rs.71,200/- against loan of Rs.60,000/- even then OP No. 1 issued several notices to the complainant for repayment of loan
and demanded Rs.4,71,027.30 from Amrit Lal and Rs.3,79,858.60 from Saluchi Devi. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed separate complaint before District Forum. OPs resisted complaints and submitted that District forum had no territorial jurisdiction. It was further submitted that OP No. 3 took loan from OP No.1 and advanced to the complainant and complainants are chronic defaulter in payment of installments and amount has been demanded as per terms of loan agreement. It was further submitted that complaints are barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing parties allowed complaint and directed OP No. 3 to re-calculate amount payable at 10% p.a. and refund/recover the amount and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10.,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- to each of the complainants. Appeals filed by OP No. 1 were allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned orders against which these revisions have been filed.
None appeared for Respondent No. 2 & 3 even after service.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Respondent No.1 and perused record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as notices were issued by OP No.1, District forum, Panchkula had jurisdiction even then learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeals and dismissing complaints for want of territorial jurisdiction; hence, revision petitions be allowed and impugned orders be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission to decide appeals on merits. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petitions be dismissed.
Complainants in their complaints have specifically pleaded that OP No. 1 sanctioned loan. It was further pleaded that mortgage deed was registered at Panchkula. It was further pleaded that OP No. 1 issued several notices demanding money. OP No. 1 in reply submitted that District forum had no territorial jurisdiction as loan was disbursed by OP No. 3 at Ambala, but in written statement issuance of notices by OP No. 1 has nowhere been denied and only it has been pleaded that demand has been made as per terms and conditions of mortgage deed and complainants are chronic defaulter.
No doubt, it has been pleaded that there is no privity of contract between complainant and OP No.1, but as notices have been issued by OP No. 1 to the complainant for recovery of amount complaint filed at headquarters of OP No. 1 at Panchkula is maintainable, though, loan has been disbursed by OP No. 3 at Ambala. It cannot be said that no cause of action arose at Panchkula because mortgage deed was also registered at Panchkula and demand notices have also been issued by OP No. 1 from Panchkula.
Learned State Commission while following judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2003 CTJ 2 (SC) (CP) has wrongly held that District forum, Panchkula had no jurisdiction whereas in the light of aforesaid discussion, District Forum Panchkula had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. As learned State Commission has allowed appeals and set aside order of District forum for want of territorial jurisdiction, these revision petitions are to be allowed and matter is to be remanded back to learned State Commission to decide appeals on merits.
Consequently, revision petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed and impugned order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1360 of 2011 - The Haryana State Co-op. Hsg. Fed. Ltd. Vs. Amrit Lal & Ors. and order dated 9.11.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1394 of 2011 - The Haryana State Co-op. Hsg. Fed. Ltd. Vs. Saluchi Devi is set aside and mater is remanded back to learned State Commission to decide appeals on merits.
Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on 29.9.2015.