Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon‘ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa, President; Mr. Justice
C.L. Chaudhry, Mr. Justice J.K. Mehra, Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao &
Mr. B.K. Taimni, Members
LT. COL. S.K. BHATIA (RETD.)—Petitioner
versus
PUNJAB FINANCIAL CORPN. & ANR.—Respondents
Revision Petition No. 2007 of 1999—Decided on 26.4.2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner: In person.
For the Respondents:Mr. Amit Dayal, Advocate.
A petitioner, having entered into a mortgage agreement, cannot claim deficiency of service beyond the limitation period and without alleging any violation of the agreement by the respondent.
Headnote:
Consumer - Loan Disbursement - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - SEMFEX Scheme - Mortgage Deed - Limitation - Deficiency of Service
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Army Officer, approached the respondent-Punjab Financial Corporation (P.F.C.) for a loan to start an industrial unit. The petitioner alleged delay in loan sanctioning, non-extension of entitled facilities, and early recovery causing huge losses. The District Forum rejected the complaint as time-barred and directed the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. The State Commission dismissed the appeal on grounds of time-bar and non-consumer status.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint was time-barred as the period of limitation started from the loan sanction dates. It also held that the petitioner, having entered into a mortgage agreement, could not claim deficiency of service beyond the limitation period and without alleging any violation of the agreement by PFC.
Issues: Time-barred complaint, consumer status, deficiency of service
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's complaint was time-barred as the period of limitation started from the loan sanction dates. The court held that the petitioner, having entered into a mortgage agreement, could not claim deficiency of service beyond the limitation period and without alleging any violation of the agreement by PFC.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Mr. B.K. Taimni, Member—This revision petition has been filed by the complainant before this Commission against the order passed in appeal by the State Commission in Appeal No. 287/1998 on 19.5.1999.
2. Very briefly the facts are that the petitioner-Lt. Col. Bhatia approached the respondent-Punjab Financial Corporation (P.F.C.) for a loan of Rs. 5.00 lakhs for starting a small industrial unit in September, 1991. Loan was sanctioned by PFC on 14.9.1992. An offer was also made on 11.9.1992 by PFC to the petitioner for release of 1.42 lakhs under, soft Seed Capital Assistance of IDBI/RBI under Self-Employment for Ex-Servicemen (SEMFFX). Even though acceptance of this offer is not on record, it can be presumed that the petitioner accepted this offer as the Mortgage Deed executed in favour of the respondent PFC by the petitioner mentions this amount as well. According to the petitioner, since there was delay in releasing installments of the sanctioned amount, he had to approach PFC again for additional amount to cover cost over-run which was also sanctioned on 6.12.1994 and another Mortgage Deed executed on 10.3.1995.
3. The complaint of the petitioner is three fold. Firstly, the respondent PFC took unusual long time (three years) in sanctioning the loan resulting in project cost escalation as well the rate of interest from 10% p.a. to 20% resulting in under production to the extent of 40% of its projected capacity. Secondly, all the facilities which he was entitled under SEMFEX have not been extended to him causing him a serious loss and thirdly, by starting recovery earlier than envisaged under the SEMFEX Scheme and not paying the last installment of Rs. 44,000/- of the loan, all this causing him huge losses. All this reflects deficiency in services rendered by the respondent PFC and in turn praying for damages of Rs. 4,95,000/- with compound interest; to get him all the benefits under SEMFEX due to the petitioner; and, to direct the respondent PFC to put the whole loan account in order and to refund the over-charged amount.
4. The District Forum after examination passed a detailed and reasoned order rejecting the first part of the complaint, i.e. terms of loan sanctioned on 14.9.1992 and any cause arising from thereon as time barred, the complaint having been filed in 1997 against the cause of action in 1992. On other issues, the District Forum directed the petitioner to approach Civil Court for relief as the issue revolved around registered agreement of mortgage deed and other conditions which the District Forum found itself unable to go into.
5. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order and the State Commission dismissed the appeal on two grounds. Firstly, finding the complaint time-barred and secondly, by not accepting the petitioner a consumer, within the meaning of Consumer Protect Act, 1986 for which it relied upon the judgment of Karnataka State Commission in M.V. Sri Kant v. K.S.F.C. & Anr., 1997 CCJ 821, and Krishan Behari Vyas v. Rajasthan Finance Corporation, III (1992) CPJ 105=1992 (1) CPR 86., and also relying upon the judgment of National Commission passed in M/ s. Shankar Tubewells v. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, 1997 (2) CLJ 472.
6. Not satisfied with this order of the State Commission, the petitioner has filed this revision. In this revision petition, the petitioner has alleged deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent by way of not disbursing loan in two installments, commencing recovery of loan even before full disbursement of the loan amount, not adhering to the Scheme of SEMFEX, and cancellation of working capital sanctioned to him. He states that the petitioner has the status of a consumer as laid down by Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=AIR 1994 SC 787. He also referred to a number of other cases of State and National Commission in which bank sanctioning the loan has been held to be services rendered
