Ilora Chowdhury vs Manager, Icici Bank Ltd

C. Viswanath, J

The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in F.A. No. 754/2014 dated 25.04.2017.

In this Complaint, the Petitioner/ Complainant stated that on 17.05.2012, she had taken a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Respondent/Opposite Party by pledging gold weighing 57.54 gms valued at Rs.1,00,263/-. It was further stated that as per terms of the Agreement, the Petitioner was required to pay interest @16.5% per annum to be repaid within six months. On 24.06.2013, when the Petitioner went to the Respondent to redeem the mortgage and for return of gold ornaments pledged with the Respondent, the Respondent refused to return the same. Several requests were made to the Respondent to return the gold ornaments but all went invain. Hence, the Complaint was filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent alleging deficiency in service.

The Complaint was contested by the Respondent whereby all the allegations were denied, contending that the Petitioner was liable to pay interest @16% p.a. from the 17.05.2012 to 17.11.2012. As she had not complied with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the Respondent Bank demanded the money by sending a letter to the Petitioner, but to no effect. Ultimately, the gold was sold in auction at a price of Rs.119,350/-. The sale proceeds was adjusted against the outstanding dues of the Complainant and there was a credit balance of Rs.15,374/-only in the said account. The same was intimated to the Petitioner. As there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondent, the Petitioner was not entitled to get any relief.

The District Forum, vide order dated 20.06.2014, held that "from the record it cannot be said that the Petitioner took steps in time for renewal of the loan agreement, after making necessary payment. The loan agreement discloses that the intimation sent to the address in the Complaint was the real address of the Petitioner. There may be some changes of address but it was not possible for the Respondent to know the change of address, unless it was intimated. No document was annexed from where it could be construed that such intimation of change of address was given to the Respondent by the Petitioner. It was also noted that after auction sale, the balance amount had been deposited to the account of the Complainabt as per contention of the Respondent. There is no denial of the same by the Petitioner. Hence, the Complaint was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 25.04.2017, held that the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner for non-issuance of notice did not appear to be convincing because in the petition of the Complainant, the Petitioner mentioned her address as premises No. 631, Bagha Jatin Station Road, P.S. - Patuli, Kolkata - 700086. In the loan agreement, however, the address mentioned was Paschimpara East Raod, Ward No. 101, Jadavpur, South 24 Praganas, Kolkata - 700086. The address mentioned by the Petitioner in the petition of Complaint and in the Loan Agreement did not tally with each other. This being so, the shortcoming of notice cannot be faulted with. In the case of Sanjay Vasant Salve, this Commission observed that "there was no need to give notice to the Petitioner. The Petitioner had not paid the entire EMIs. His intention was malafide. Counsel for the Petitioner admits that an amount of Rs.1,29,494.08 is still outstanding to the Complainant, therefore, we dismiss the Revision Petition with cost".

The same principle will be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Petitioner had full knowledge about the expiry of the Loan Agreement on 17.11.2012, but did not take any steps even after three months i.e. within 17.02.2013. When the loan account was declared NPA, the Petitioner approached the Respondent Bank which showed that the intention of the Petitioner was not bonafide. The District Forum was quite justified in dismissing the Complaint and the order passed by the District Forum was confirmed.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Respondent.

There is a delay of a day in filing the present Revision Petition by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay along with the present Revision Petition. In view of the very small delay, the same is condoned.

This Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has limited jurisdiction. It is not required to re-assess or re-appreciate the evidence and reach to its own independent conclusion, Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011(3) Scale 654" has held as under:

"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 cane 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 sets 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".

In the present case, both the District Forum as well as the State Commission held the view that the Petitioner was fully aware of the expiry of loan agreement on 17.11.2012 but did not take any steps to repay the amount even three months after expiry period. It was not possible for the Respondent Bank to know the changes in address of the Petitioner unless and until the same was intimated to them by the Petitioner. Only when the loan account was declared as NPA, did the Petitioner approach the Respondent. When the State Commission has given a fair and justified decision after appreciating all the evidence placed on record, in the Revision we are not supposed to re-appreciate and reassess the evidence and give a different opinion on the same set of facts, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.".

In view of the concurrent findings of the Fora below we find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The Revision Petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.