AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IN this revision filed by the complainant, challenge is to the order dated 20.9.2004 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow dismissing appeal against the order dated 12.8.2004 of a District Forum whereby complaint was dismissed.
PETITIONER filed complaint, inter alia, alleging that it is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. Society purchased three biswas of land forming part of plot No. 350 on 28.1.1991 and contacted respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 1 for sanctioning loan as per government policy. By letter No. 1020-22/88-89 dated 31.3.1989, respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2, conveyed sanction of loan of Rs. 1,35,000/- for construction of building and Rs. 1,07,730/- for purchase of equipments. Amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- was released through a Bank Draft on 6.6.1990. Thereafter, petitioner raised construction of building by incurring cost of Rs. 3,75,987/-. After completion of construction, despite demand, the respondents failed to release the said amount for purchase of equipments. Thus, direction was sought to the respondents to pay Rs. 1,07,730/- for purchase of equipment and loss of Rs. 5,000/- per month, etc. Respondents contested the complaint by filing a joint written version. It was alleged that the shed constructed by petitioner was of kucha mud which was against the pattern of respondent No. 2-Board. At the time of providing loan, petitioner had furnished the surety of Uday Pratap Singh who later on withdrew his surety. Amount for purchase of equipment, in absence of fresh surety was, therefore, not released. It was further alleged that petitioner despite demand had not deposited any money and when Collector Amin pursuant to recovery certificate visited the house of petitioner, he ran way and filed complaint after ten years of obtaining the loan. It was pointed out by Shri K.M. Dubey for petitioner that by the time complaint was filed, the recovery certificate had not been issued and, thus, the observation made by Fora below about recovery proceedings being pending is erroneous. As may be seen from the order of District Forum, petitioner was non-suited on ground of complaint being barred by time and recovery proceedings being pending against it. Admittedly, sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- for construction of building was released some time in 1990 and construction was alleged to have been completed some time in the year 1991. Cause of action to file complaint arising out of non-providing of amount of Rs. 1,07,730/- for purchase of equipment had accrued after the respondents had completed construction of building and demanded that money and the complaint filed on 3.9.1998 was, thus, patently, barred by limitation. Undisputedly, proceedings for recovery of said amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- with interest are pending. Petitioner alleges that those were not initiated at the time of filing of complaint. Order passed by Fora below would show that recovery proceedings were pending on the dates the two orders dismissing complaint and appeal came to be passed by Fora below. In this backdrop, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.