Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
Manik Chandra Ghatak —Petitioner
versus
Branch Manager, United Bank
of India —Respondent
Revision Petition No.1609 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 16/03/2016 in Appeal No. 05/2015 of the State Commission Andaman Nicobar)
Decided on 1.2.2019
Held: This order is impugned before me by way of this Revision Petition. Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very limited. It is not permissible for this Commission to re-assess or re-appreciate the evidences and thus to reach to a different conclusion than what has been arrived at by the Foras below on appreciation of the evidences. This Commission is not permitted to substitute its opinion with the findings of the Fora below which are based on the facts proved on record. The impugned order can be disturbed only when the Petitioner succeeds in showing that there is jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice has occurred. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2013(2) CPR 14 (SC): (2011) 11 SCC 269” has held 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”.
As regards the jurisdictional error is concerned, no fact has been brought to my notice to show any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. As regards the miscarriage of justice is concerned, it is the admitted fact that the Petitioner/Complainant had defaulted in making the payment of EMIs since 2009 and policies were forfeited only on 28.09.2011. Since the Complainant is a defaulter and the policies were mortgaged by him, the forfeiture of the same for recovery of the loan amount cannot be said to have caused any miscarriage of justice to the Complainant/Petitioner. The District Forum has also noted that the Complainant is an educated man and very well aware that he had to regularly pay the EMIs and he himself was a defaulter. I found no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The Revision Petition has no merits and the same is dismissed in limine. (Paras 10 and 11)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 16.03.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.5 of 2015 filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Port Blair (for short “the District Forum”) dated 29.04.2015 in Complaint No.3 of 2013.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant took two loans (Account No.1400300002288 and 1400300001618) for ?60,000/- each from the Respondent. Against the said loan amounts, he had mortgaged his two LIC policies being No.465241406 and 465241407. As per the terms of the loan agreement, he was required to deposit the EMIs regularly which he failed to deposit since 2009.
3. The contention of the Complainant/Petitioner was that on 24.11.2012 at the time when he tried to deposit the premium of the LIC policies, he learnt that those policies were surrendered by the Respondent and the value was remitted to UBI. He challenged the said act of the Respondent since it had been done by the Respondent without giving any prior notice or intimation to him. He also contended that the Respondent had, without any intimation to him, after surrendering the policies, credited the excess amount of ?38,652/- to his saving bank account after a long period. He had further contended that since his loan account had not been declared non-performing asset with intimation to him, the realization of the amount of dues by the Respondent by surrendering the LIC policies had caused huge financial loss to him. He had given in his Complaint the loss which had occurred to him on account of such surrender of his LIC policies and claimed a compensation of ?15,74,786/- on different counts with interest.
4. The claim of the Petitioner was further contested by the Respondent and they had filed their Written Version. It was their stand that the Complainant was very well aware that he had to regularly pay the EMIs but he defaulted since 2009 and that since the policies were mortgaged with the Respondent, they were within their rights to recover the loan amount by forfeiting the policies. It is submitted that the dues were recovered and the balance amount was deposited in the saving account of the Complainant on 24.11.2012.
5. Parties had led their evidences.
6. Opposite Party was cross examined by the Petitioner.
7. After hearing the arguments, the District Forum gave the following findings:
“It has been admitted by the complainant that he did not pay any amount of E.M.I. since 2009. It is expected that the Complainant being an educated and prudent person had the knowledge as to what steps the bank might have taken in case the payment of the amount of the E.M.I.s of his loan account remaining unpaid for long. There is no evidence at all to show that the Complainant had approached the bank when he could not pay the amount of installment for a substantial period.
It must have been very well within his knowledge that the bank would have surrendered his two LIC policies kept mortgaged against his loan if the payment of E.M.I.s of the loan is not made for long, and this would bring immense financial loss for him, the anxiety of which is found to have been largely expressed by him in the petition of complaint.
As the complainant did not pay the said loan or the amount of the E.M.I. of said loan and kept it pending over the years. In such circumstances, we don’t find anything against the act of the bank in realizing the amount of loan by way of surrendering the two LIC policies which had been kept mortgaged against the said loan. And the said act of the bank cannot be said to have amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.”
“But one thing that seems to be very surprising to us is the fact that the balance amount of the surrendered value of the LIC policies afte
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
