NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Raipur Division Life Insurance
Employees Cooperative Societies
Limited and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Sandhya Gupta and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.516 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 22/11/2016 in Appeal No. 477/2016 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
Decided on 12.7.2018
Held: Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioners herein/opposite parties preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 22.11.2016 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum. Hence, the present revision petition—Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record—It is observed that the loan was actually obtained for son’s education and hence, the balance amount was not disbursed—If the complainant requires the balance amount for medical expenses, she should have given a separate application for the same—It was observed that both the parties have been negligent in one way or the other—Hence, the order in so far as it relates to the balance amount it remains and the compensation is reduced to Rs.20,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/- as ordered has to be paid within 45 days with interest @ 3%.
Result: Appeal is partly allowed.
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Raipur Division Life Insurance Employees Cooperative Societies Ltd. & Ors. against the order dated 22.11.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.2016/477.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/ respondent is a member of the petitioner society and applied for loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the petitioner society disclosing her son’s education as purpose of loan. The loan was sanctioned by the petitioner society. However, Rs.3,00,000/- was disbursed to the respondent and the remaining amount of Rs.6,89,750/- was put in a fixed deposit in the name of the respondent. A legal notice was sent by the respondent to disburse the remaining amount so that loan can be utilised for the medical needs of the petitioner, which were pressing at that time. The petitioner society did not disburse the remaining amount and therefore, the respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (in short ‘the District Forum’) and the District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 05.07.2016 as under:-
“10. Therefore on the basis of the above complete investigation we accept the complaint filed by the complainant partially and order that the respondent jointly or severally within month of the date of the order:-
a) Will pay to the complainant Rs.6,89,750/- the loan amount deposit in the fixed deposit with interest.
b) Will pay to the complainant Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental harassment cause due to the above act.
c) Will pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation and advocate fees.”
3. Aggrieved by the above order of the District Forum, the petitioners herein/opposite parties preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 22.11.2016 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum. Hence, the present revision petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that in the application form the purpose of loan was shown as son’s education and marriage. Though the loan was sanctioned, amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was actually disbursed to the complainant. The remaining amount was got fixed deposited in the name of the complainant and the same was to be released when the complainant provided the proof of marriage i.e. invitation card. The complainant never provided invitation card and therefore, the fixed deposit was not released though the complainant was earning interest on this fixed deposit. It was further contended by the learned counsel that though the loan application was made for son’s education and marriage, in the legal notice given to the petitioners/opposite parties, it was stated that the remaining amount of loan was required for medical treatment of the loanee as she was suffering from serious disease. As the loan was not sanctioned for medical purpose, the fixed deposit was not released to the complainant. At the last, the learned counsel stated that the society is ready to release the fixed deposit to the complainant along with interest accrued provided the complainant files an application for need of the remaining amount for medical purpose and it was further prayed that as the petitioner society was not deficient in any way as the total amount of loan was sanctioned, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- as awarded by the District Forum be set aside.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant stated that the loan was sought only for son’s education and somebody in the society itself has made overwriting in the application form to include the ‘marriage’ also. Thus, there was no question of providing any invitation card. There should be no requirement of fresh application for release of remaining amount on medical ground as th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.