AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this order we propose to dispose of above-noted revision petitions preferred against the common order of the State Commission dated 7 th March, 2011 in execution appeal Nos.4726/2010 & 4727/2010.
Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the respondents Siddamma & Santha Bai filed separate consumer complaints against the petitioner bank alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner bank in relation to release of loan applied by them under "Chaitanya Safe Loan-cum-Subsidy Scheme" of the Government. The consumer complaints were contested by the petitioner bank.
The District Forum, Gulbarga vide order dated 9.4.2009 allowed both the complaints and directed the petitioner/opposite party to release the loan amount to the respective complainants. Besides Rs.1,000/- each was awarded to the complainants/respondents as compensation for mental agony as also the cost of litigation.
The petitioner/opposite party preferred appeals against the aforesaid order. The State Commission, Karnataka dismissed both the appeals and confirmed the order of the District Forum. The revision petitions filed against the concurrent order of the Fora below were dismissed by the National Commission vide order dated 27.8.2010.
The respondents/complainants/decree holders filed separate execution petitions against the petitioner on the plea that despite of the order of the District Forum having attained finality the petitioner bank has failed to comply with the order by releasing the loan amount to the respective decree holders. The execution petition was contested by the petitioner bank on the plea that the bank is ready and willing to comply with the directions of the consumer Fora and the order could not be complied with because of the failure of the respondents/decree holders to comply with the requisite formalities of granting of loan by furnishing the requisite documents for securing the repayment of loan.
The concerned District Forum with whom the execution petitions were filed rejected the plea of the petitioner/judgment debtor on the ground that executing Court had no jurisdiction to go behind the order under execution which has become final. The executing Court thus granted time upto 28 th October, 2010 to the petitioner bank to release the loan amounts to the respective respondents/decree holders. The appeals preferred against the order of the executing District Forum were dismissed by the State Commission, Karnataka on the same logic. This has led to filing of the revision petitions.
Leanred Shri Rajiv Kapur, Advocate for the petitioner/judgment debtor has contended that the impugned orders of the Fora below are not sustainable because the Fora below while passing the impugned orders have totally ignored the fact that the petitioner/judgment debtor bank is in the business of banking and financing and as per the banking norms while granting and releasing the loan to an applicant the bank officials are required to comply with certain formalities in order to ensure and secure repayment of loan. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is still ready and willing to release the loan provided the respondents/decree holders submit the documents, namely, (a) application, loan sanction letter and terms and conditions, (b) Appraisal letter, CIBIL, (c) Arrangement letter, cash voucher and (d) Hypothecation agreement under stamp duty.
Despite of four pass-overs given, no one has turned up on behalf of the respondents/decree holders. Respondents/decree holders are, therefore, proceeded ex-parte.
On careful consideration of record we find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner bank. No doubt the Fora below while disposing of the complaints have directed the petitioner bank to release the loan amount to respective complainants. This by no means imply that the petitioner bank is required to release the loan without completing the formalities/paper work and without settling the terms and conditions for repayment of loan as also without ensuring to secure the repayment of loan by asking for sum security in the form of guarantee or hypothecation of the property. Fora below have failed to appreciate that the petitioner is a public sector bank dealing with public money and it is not expected to release the loan in favour of the parties without completing the formalities for ensuring the repayment of loan. This aspect of the matter is inbuilt in the order directing release of loan, which only means that the petitioner bank shall not deny the loan to the respondents/decree holders if they otherwise fulfil the requisite requirement to secure the loan.
In view of the discussion above, we are of the opinion that the orders of the Fora below are not sustainable. Revision petitions are therefore allowed. Impugned orders are set aside with the observation that in the event of the respondents/decree holders completing the requisite formalities, the petitioner bank shall release the loan to them within 30 days.
Revision petitions are disposed of accordingly.