NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Manager, Bank of Baroda —Petitioner
versus
Susanta Saha —Respondent
Revision Petition No.676 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 16/12/2016 in Appeal No. 524/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 16.5.2018

IMPORTANT POINT
In exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, scope of interference is limited.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Banking—Deficiency in service—Documents not returned after full repayment of loan amount—District Forum allowed complaint and directed OP to return original title deed, sanction plan, loan agreement and stamp papers signed by complainant for loan account—District Forum awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation—In exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, scope of interference is limited because such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice as a result of impugned order—No illegality or perversity in well-reasoned order of State Commission—Revision petition dismissed.

       Held: We have perused the documents, the loan sanction letter, correspondence between the bank and the complainant, the loan account statements, etc. and gave thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties. The loan sanction letter Annexure P1 revealed that OP bank has considered the application of complainant dated 31-01-2006 and agreed to grant the loan/credit facility on certain terms & conditions. As per sanction letter dated 15-02-2006, the loan was sanctioned for Rs.3,82,000/- for total period of 180 months and repayable in 174 monthly installments for Rs.3,716/-. It was stated in the sanction letter under the caption ‘security documents’ that to deposit term loan agreement, memorandum of deposit of title deed to create equitable mortgage of house, declaration cum undertaking cum authority and Annexure 1. On perusal of the loan account details, it is clear that the complainant started paying the EMI from 31-08-2006. Thus, in our view, OP has disbursed the loan amount to the complainant after the fulfillment of all the requirements of term loan. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that two years after the sanction of the loan the OP had communicated the complainant. The letters dated 16-01-2008 and 10-08-2009, were written for deposit of title deed of the house property of the complainant. Thus, it was a negligent and lackadaisical act of the OP. It is surprising that OP slept over the matter for almost two years from the date of disbursement of the loan and suddenly on one fine day i.e.16-01-2008 wrote a letter to the complainant for creation of equitable mortgage by depositing the title deed of house property. It is surprising that how the bank has disbursed the loan without such mortgage. We have perused one letter issued by the bank manager on 19-03-2012. Bare reading of the letter appears to be the ‘no dues certificate’ issued by the branch manager. It is reproduced as bellow:

        “This is to certify that one Housing Loan for Rs.3,82,000/- was sanctioned to Mr. Susanta Saha of P-12, Ramkrishna Pally, South Roynagar, Bansdroni, Kolkata – 70 on 15-02-2006.

        Today Mr. Saha has closed the account by repaying full amount along with interest & all other charges. This can be treated as No Dues Certificate.

        All necessary documents will be handed over to Mr. Saha very soon.”

       Thus, the complainant had paid entire loan amount and there was no dues. It was also stated in the letter that all necessary documents will be handed over to Mr. Saha (complainant) very soon, meaning thereby that the bank was in possession of documents filed by the complainant. Thus, bank is estopped from making frivolous submissions now.

       Moreover, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the scope of interference is limited because such powers can be exercised only if there is some “prima facie” jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, as a result of the impugned order. This view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruby Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014(2) CPR 14 (SC): 2011 (11) SCC 269, while dealing with the scope of powers of National Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction has observed as under:

        “23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.

        The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”

       Respectfully following the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case (supra) and the material on record, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the well-reasoned order of the State Commission. Moreover, there is limited scope in the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (Paras 8, 9 and 10)

       Result: Revision Petition dismissed.