Ashok Kumar Ram vs Jai Bharat Sinha & 3 Ors.

The learned proxy counsel appears on behalf of the main counsel for the petitioner. From the case file, it is seen that this is a revision challenging the order of the State Commission dated 10.08.2017, wherein the State Commission has already reduced the compensation and cost from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.10,000/- only and it is to be shared among the three opposite parties. The respondent no.1/complainant has come all the way from Hajipur, Bihar and therefore, there is no justification for adjourning the case today because if the matter is adjourned due to non-appearance of the arguing counsel for the petitioner, a cost will have to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent no.1 who has come from outside and no advance notice for adjournment was given by the petitioner. This cost may be substantial which may not be justified keeping the decretal amount of Rs.10,000/- in view. Therefore, the matter is being disposed of today.

From the revision petition, it is seen that the petitioner was OP No.1 and he was working as Development Officer with the L.I.C. of India. It is the main argument taken in the revision petition that the petitioner was only a Development Officer with the L.I.C. and he cannot be saddled with the liability to pay any compensation alongwith the main Corporation i.e. L.I.C. of India. It is only the LIC which is responsible for making the payment. It has been stated that as per the order of the State Commission, Rs.10,000/- is already deposited with the State Commission.

It is seen that the case relates to only Rs.10,000/- and in my view, the case does not justify any further hearing in the matter on some other date. Moreover, the decretal amount is also very meagre that it does not justify any interference from this Commission in the background of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs Khazani and another, IV (2012) CPJ 5 SC wherein following has been observed:-

"Number of litigation in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Bank, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the officers' skin. Judicial system is over burdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion this court has reminded the Central Government, State Government and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked or resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category".

The Apex Court further held;

"10. The Chief Manager stated in the affidavit that no bill was raised by the counsel for the bank for conducting the matter before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. We have not been told how much money has been spent by the bank officers for their to and fro journeys to the lawyers' office, to the District Forum, State Forum, National Commission and to the Supreme Court. For a paltry amount of Rs. 15,000/-,even according to the affidavit, bank has already spent a total amount of Rs. 12,950/- leaving aside the time spent and other miscellaneous expenses spent by the officers of the bank for to and fro expenses etc. Further, it may be noted that the District Forum had awarded Rs. 3,000/-towards cost of litigation and compensation for the harassment caused to Smt. Khazani. Adding this amount, the cost goes up to Rs. 15,950/-. Remember, the buffalo had died 10 years back, but the litigation is not over, fight is still on for Rs. 15,000/-.

Learned counsel appearing for the bank, Shri Amit Grover, submitted that though the amount involved is not very high but the claim was fake and on inspection by the insurance company, no tag was found on the dead body of the buffalo and hence the insurer was not bound to make good the loss, consequently the bank had to proceed against Smt. Khazani.

We are of the view that issues raised before us are purely questions of facts examined by the three forums including the National Disputes Redressal Commission and we fail to see what is the important question of law to be decided by the Supreme Court. In our view, these types of litigation should be discouraged and message should also go, otherwise for all trivial and silly matters people will rush to this court.

Gramin Bank like the appellant should stand for the benefit of the gramins who sometimes avail of loan for buying buffaloes, to purchase agricultural implements, manure, seeds and so on. Repayment, to a large extent, depends upon the income which they get out of that. Crop failure, due to drought or natural calamities, disease to cattle or their death may cause difficulties to gramins to repay the amount. Rather than coming to their rescue, banks often drive them to litigation leading them extreme penury. Assuming that the bank is right, but once an authority like District Forum takes a view, the bank should graciously accept it rather than going in for further litigation and even to the level of Supreme Court. Driving poor gramins to various litigative forums should be strongly deprecated because they have also to spend large amounts for conducting litigation. We condemn this type of practice, unless the stake is very high or the matter affects large number of persons or affects a general policy of the Bank which has far reaching consequences.

We, in this case, find no error in the decisions taken by all fact finding authorities including the National Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the bank to the first respondent within a period of one month. Resultantly, the Bank now has to spend altogether Rs. 25,950/- for a claim of Rs. 15,000/-,apart from to and fro travelling expenses of the Bank officials. Let God save the Gramins."

Relying upon the above observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I do not find any necessity to interfere with the order dated 10.08.2017 whereby only a meagre amount of Rs.10,000/- has been ordered to be paid to the complainant. Moreover, the fora below have given concurrent finding on the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and therefore, facts cannot be re-assessed by this Commission at the stage of the revision petition as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, as under:-

"23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside.

In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora."

Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the revision petition which calls for any interference from this Commission and consequently, the revision petition No.3781 of 2017 is dismissed.

The State Commission is directed to release the amount of Rs.10,000/- deposited in compliance of order dated 10.08.2017, to the complainant by way of a Demand Draft. As no proof has been filed with this Commission for depositing this amount with the State Commission, therefore, if no amount is deposited with the State Commission, the OPs will ensure that the amount is paid to the complainant within a period of 45 days.