AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.A. No. 53 OF 2022 in R.P. No. 290 of 2020
This application seeks restoration of the revision petition which was dismissed in default for lack of prosecution vide this Commission’s Order dated 02.02.2022.
The learned counsel for the petitioner bank submits that as its earlier counsel had unfortunately expired the bank was not aware of the date on which the case was listed, and accordingly requests that the case be restored.
Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel and considering the reasons contained in the application, the Order dated 02.02.2022 is recalled and the revision petition is restored to its original number.
R.P. No. 290 OF 2020
This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 16.12.2019 of the State Commission in appeal no. 545 of 2019 arising out of the Order dated 03.07.2019 of the District Commission in complaint no. 32 of 2019.
We have heard the learned counsel for the bank and have perused the record.
The dispute relates to non-issuance of no-dues / no-objection certificate (NOC) and related document(s) (Form No. 35) by the lender bank (the petitioner herein) to the borrower complainant (the respondent herein) evn after repaying the entire loan amount with interest in respect of the subject vehicle financed by the bank.
The District Commission partly allowed the complaint, on contest, and, for the reasons recorded, ordered the bank to issue NOC and Form No. 35 to the complainant and to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation.
Appeal preferred by the bank was dismissed by the State Commission, finding no merit in it. The operative paragraphs of the State Commission’s said Order of 16.12.2019 are reproduced below:
The District Forum has rightly observed that as the complainant has repaid all the dues and nothing is due towards him. Therefore, the agreement comes to end. The complainant is entitled to NOC and Form no.35.
In view of the above discussions, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
As such this revision petition has been filed apropos concurrent findings of the two fora below.
The learned counsel submits that the NOC and Form No. 35 in respect of the subject vehicle were withheld by the bank even after the loan had been satisfied since another loan in respect of another vehicle was still outstanding.
We find that this aspect has been aptly dealt with by the State Commission in paragraphs 11 and 12 of its impugned Order of 16.12.2019, wherein it has also inter alia quoted and critiqued the relevant conditions of the loan agreement(s).
It is implicit in the State Commission’s Order that in case of default on the part of the borrower in respect of the other separate loan, and in respect of which the (other) vehicle in question continues to be hypothecated with the bank, nothing prevents the bank from proceeding against the borrower in accordance with the conditions contained in the concerned agreement and as per the law. But in respect of the subject loan herein, in which, admittedly, there is no default, and, admittedly, the principal along with the interest has been duly paid by the borrower, there is no reason or good ground for not closing the loan account or withholding the NOC and Form No. 35 of the subject vehicle (which is different and separate of the vehicle in question in the other loan).
We notice no jurisdictional error, or perverse findings of fact, or a legal principle ignored or erroneously ruled, or miscarriage of justice having been occasioned. Nothing as may cause to require interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is visible.
The revision petition no. 290 of 2020 being bereft of worth is dismissed.
The Order made by the District Commission as upheld and sustained by the State Commission shall be forthwith complied with, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘ enforcement ’ and for ‘ penalty ’, as per the law.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in this petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioner bank as well as to the District Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.