AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Similar questions of fact and law are involved in these three revision petitions and therefore, they are being decided together.
Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 in all the three revision petitions are the original complainants, who filed complaint against the petitioner and respondent No.2. As opposite parties alleging that they had paid the total loan amount to respondent No.2, however, the petitioner had not given them the No Due Certificate even after repayment of 100% loan. The District Forum allowed the complaints and ordered issue No Due Certificate to the complainants apart from Rs.2,500/- as compensation and Rs.2,500 as cost. The petitioner preferred appeals before the State Commission and the same were dismissed by the State Commission. Hence, the present revision petitions.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage.
Learned counsel stated that as per order of the State Commission he has already given No Due Certificate and is ready to comply with the order of the State Commission, however, the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the State Commission has observed that respondent No.2/opposite party No.1 is the agent of petitioner/opposite party No.2, which is not correct. He has already issued No Due Certificate in all these cases to the respective complainants. The amounts outstanding against the complainants in these cases are very meagre like Rs.5808/- in RP No.502 of 2018, Rs.3511/- in RP No.503 of 2018 and Rs.3068/- in RP No.504 of 2018. These amounts have been taken by respondent No.2/opposite party No.1, whereas neither they are agent of opposite party No.2/petitioner nor the petitioner has authorised them to collect repayment of loan on behalf of petitioner. Hence it was prayed that revision petitions may be allowed and the order of the State Commission be set aside or modified.
I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In respect of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State Commission has observed the following:-
"We do not agree with the contentions raised by counsel for the appellant in this regard. We have gone through the contents of legal notice (reply) dated 17.05.2017 Annexure R4 sent by the appellant, through its lawyer. In response to notice served upon it by respondent no.1. In para no.5 of the said notice, it has been candidly said by the appellant that a proposal was accepted by it (appellant) for financing 300 vehicles, upon receipt of five cheques amounting to Rs.40 lacs each, as guarantee. However, copy of that proposal has not been placed on record by the appellant, for the reasons best known to it. At the same time it is very interesting to note here that in para no.6 of the said legal notice (reply).
It has again been candidly said by the appellant that Mr. Bhullar alongwith respondent No.2 persisted with the fraudulent activities, as it revealed that despite collections towards monthly instalments from the respective borrowers including the persons mentioned in the notice under reply (ONE OF WHICH WAS RESPONDENT NO.1 ALSO), have misappropriated the same and have not deposited it with the appellant. This statement of the appellant, itself goes to show that respondent no.2 was made responsible to collect monthly instalments of loan amount, towards the said vehicle from respondent no.1 including other borrowers. In view of above, the contention raised by the appellant to the effect that it had no concern with respondent no.2 or that the amount towards loan, in question was directly remitted to it (appellant) by respondent no.1 and not through respondent no.2 being devoid of merit stands rejected."
From the above observations, it is clear that the State Commission has found that the respondent No.2 was authorised to collect the repayment of the loan from the loanees. The learned counsel has not denied that Mr. Bhullar, husband of Ms. Navjot Kaur, respondent No.2 was a guarantor in these agreement. Complainants have clearly stated in their complaints that they have made all the payments to the respondent No.2 or her husband Mr. Bhullar and the petitioner has admitted that all the payments have reached him except for the minor amounts as mentioned above which the petitioner is treating as outstanding against the complainants. Thus, it is clear that there was some arrangement between the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 and respondent No.2 was acting as a Collector of dues for the petitioner from the loanees. Thus, both the fora below have given concurrent finding that complainants have paid all the due amounts against opposite party No.1 to opposite No.2. The complainants cannot be asked to pay any further amounts again and therefore, the orders of the fora below are perfectly in order. In any case, the scope under the revision petition against the concurrent findings given by both the fora below is quite limited as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following case:-
Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held the following:
"23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons."
The facts have already been assessed by the fora below and concurrent finding has been given that respondent No.2 has collected all the dues from the borrowers, hence nothing was due on complainant. Bases on the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, facts cannot be reassessed by this Commission in revision petition. No question of law is involved in the present revision petitions. Hence, no opportunity arises for this Commission to interfere with the impugned order passed by the State Commission.
Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in these revision petitions. Accordingly, all the revision petitions 502 of 2018, 503 of 2018 & 504 of 2018 are dismissed at the admission stage. Any dispute between two opposite parties cannot be adjudicated in a complaint case, therefore, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail legal remedy for recovery against respondent No.2.