R K Mining Private Limited vs STATE BANK OF INDIA

THE complaint filed by the Complainant -Company was disposed of by this Commission on 19.1.2015. The Complainant -Company did not choose to file appeal against the order. However, it re -presented the same file with a request to reconsider/review the orders on certain grounds.

THE Registry took objection with regard to the maintainability. As the Complainant -Company insisted that its request for reconsideration/review is maintainable, the Registry has posted the matter for orders of the Commission.

THE Complainant -Company approached this Commission by filing complaint under Section 17 (1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act seeking a direction to the Opposite Party -Bank to return the original documents submitted by it to the Opposite Party -Bank and to grant an amount of Rs.90,00,000/ - towards compensation and damages for mental agony and inconvenience alleged to have been caused by the Opposite Party -Bank. According to the Complainant -Company the Opposite Party -Bank sanctioned a loan to the tune of Rs.9 crores on 23.3.2009 to it, secured by equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds by another business organization namely, M/s. R. K. Marketing Services. The Complainant -Company is said to have hypothecated its current assets and immovable properties including a fixed deposit. It also deposited documents such as the original PAN card, original incorporation certificate of the company and certain sale deeds with the Opposite Party -Bank. The Complainant -Company states that these documents were deposited on the assurance that the same would be returned after the closure of the loan account. The Complainant - Company repaid the entire loan on 1.10.2011 and the Opposite Party -Bank through its letter dated 10.10.2011 confirmed the closure of loan account and returned an amount of Rs.7,20,139/ - through Demand Draft dated 8.10.2011 lying in deposit to its credit. Though the loan was closed, the Opposite Party -Bank did not return the documents. The legal notice dated 31.1.2013 issued in that regard went in vain. As a consequence, the Complainant -Company sustained loss. Therefore, the complaint was instituted in this Commission. The claim was resisted by the Opposite Party -Bank inter alia contending that the Complainant -Company is not a consumer. It was stated that the loan account was closed on 1.10.2011 and the same was intimated to the Complainant -Company on 10.10.2011 along with Rs.7,20,139/ - which was the balance in the fixed deposit of the Complainant -Company. The representative of the Complainant -Company was informed to take back the original documents by deputing a competent person, but they did not come to the bank. It was stated that there was no negligence on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

AFTER hearing both the parties and considering the matter on the basis of the material on record, this Commission held that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Accordingly by order dated 19.1.2015 returned the file to the Complainant -Company with a direction to file the complaint before the District Forum.

WHILE passing the said order, this Commission held that the documents sought for by the Complainant -Company were returned to the partners of the mortgager firm, M/s.R.K.Marketing Services. The Complainant -Company did not raise any objection at the time of the Opposite Party -Bank handing over the documents. So far as the compensation and damages sought for by the Complainant -Company, it was held that it was an ancillary relief dependent on the relief relating to the return of documents and in the circumstances the compensation would not exceed Rs.20,00,000/ -. Thus, the complaint was closed with a direction to return the same to be presented in the District Forum.

THE Complainant -Company did not choose to challenge the order and it has become final. However, it re -presented the same complaint for re -consideration stating that it paid Rs.4,000/ - as court fee on the strength of the quantum of amount sought for in the complaint, hence the review/reconsideration is maintainable. It relied on the Judgment of the Hon''ble National Commission rendered in FA.No.127/2009 dated 4.2.2010 for the said purpose.

HEARD both counsel.

THE learned counsel for the Complainant -Company would submit that no purpose would be served by approaching the District Forum at this length of time. He would submit that this complaint was filed in the year 2013 and it was pending for two years in this Commission. In case the complaint is instituted before the District Forum, it would take further time. As a consequence of the delay, the Complainant -Company would suffer irreparable loss. Therefore, the Complainant -Company is justified in seeking re -consideration of the matter.

ON the other hand, counsel for the Opposite Party -Bank would submit that the relief sought for by the Complainant -Company is not entertainable. According to him, this Commission has decided the matter and rendered its Judgment on merits, as such the proceedings cannot be reopened again. By seeking the relief, the Complainant -Company is only asking for the review of the order. This Commission is not vested with such power.

IN the light of the aforesaid contentions, the question for decision is whether the relief sought for by the Complainant -Company for re -consideration of the matter is entertainable by this Commission?

THERE cannot be any dispute that this Commission considered the matter on the basis of the record and passed the order after hearing both the parties. This Commission is not concerned with the correctness of the order. It would suffice to state that as far as this Commission, the order has become final.

HOWEVER , the learned counsel appearing for the Complainant -Company would state that review of the order has not been sought for, but the complaint has been re -submitted for re -consideration. The argument is highly technical. Re -consideration of the matter as sought for would arise only if there is an order to that effect by the appellate/revisional authority. Therefore, substantially the Complainant -Company is asking for the review of the order in the guise of re -consideration. This Commission is not competent to do so. There is no power vested in the Commission to review its own orders. Power of review is not an inherent power. Such power must be conferred by law. If there is no power of review vested in an authority, the order passed by it cannot be reviewed. This Commission is a creature of the statute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Act has not vested any power of review in the Commission. In Rajeev Hithendra Pathak Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar, 2012 2 ALD(SC) 146, the Supreme Court on an analysis of the provisions of the Act with reference to the power of review of the Consumer Fora held as follows: "On careful analysis of the provisions of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the Tribunals are creatures of the Statute and derive their power from the express provisions of the Statute. The District Forums and the State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside exparte orders and power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised."

In the light of the above, the complaint cannot be re -opened for consideration once again.

PLACING reliance on the Judgment of the National Commission in FA.No.127/2009, the learned counsel for the Complainant -Company would submit that the matter can be re -considered in the interests of justice. In the considered opinion of this Commission, the said Judgment has no bearing on the issue of review power of the Commission. On the other hand, it was a Judgment rendered in the appeal preferred by the aggrieved party. The contention that there would be a further delay if the District Forum is approached for the relief cannot be a ground to review the order.

FOR the foregoing reasons, the matter cannot be re -considered at the instance of the Complainant -Company. The Office objection is accordingly upheld.