Back
JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Ramesh Kr. Merathia, President, Mr. Ajit Kumar and Mrs. Shabnam Parveen, Members
STATE OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
TARA DEVI KELANKA - Respondent
FA No. 160 of 2016
Decided on : 08-06-2017
Mr. Praveen Jaiswal, Advocate, for the Appellants; None, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to condone delay in filing an appeal, the maintainability of a complaint, and the liability of a party for deficiency in service.
Headnote:
Limitation - Appeal - Delay condoned subject to payment of cost - Merit - Complaint for release of security documents and 'No Claim Certificate' - Bank's deficiency in service - Lump sum amount awarded to complainant
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint against the Bank for the release of security documents and 'No Claim Certificate'. The Bank appeared before the District Forum but did not file any written version, leading to a decision in favor of the complainant. The Bank appealed, seeking to contest the maintainability of the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the appeal was not satisfactorily explained but condoned it subject to the payment of a cost to the complainant. It held that the complaint was maintainable regarding the non-return of documents and found the Bank to have committed deficiency in service by not handing over the documents within a reasonable time. As a result, a lump sum amount was awarded to the complainant.
Issues: The issues involved the delay in filing the appeal, the maintainability of the complaint, and the Bank's deficiency in service regarding the return of documents to the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal but imposed a cost on the Bank. It also held that the complaint was maintainable and found the Bank to have committed deficiency in service by not returning the documents within a reasonable time, leading to the award of a lump sum amount to the complainant.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, and the Bank was directed to pay a lump sum amount to the complainant within a specified time, failing which interest would accrue. The operative portion of the impugned order was modified accordingly.
ORDER
Ramesh Kr. Merathia, President.—In spite of fixing this case for ex parte hearing, no body appeared for the complainant/respondent.
Heard Mr. Praveen Jaiswal appearing on behalf of O.Ps./appellants-Bank.
On limitation
2. Admittedly, the Bank appeared before the District Forum through Counsel and therefore it is false to say that the Bank came to know about the impugned order dated 18.9.2015 only in the month of June, 2016 when, the notice in Execution Case was received. Thus, there is no satisfactory explanation at all for condoning the long delay of about 300 days in filing this appeal.
3. However, in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned but subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000 to the complainant in the Executing Court.
On merit
4. The complainant filed the present complaint case for directing the Bank to release all the security documents given by her; for issuing 'No Claim Certificate'; and also for compensation etc.
5. The Counsel for the appellant appeared in the case before the District Forum but did not file any written version. Therefore, the case had to be decided ex parte.
6. The learned District Forum has directed the Bank to handover the two sale deeds and 'No Claim Certificate' to the complaint, within 60 days of the order, failing which, the Bank will be liable to pay Rs. 1,000 per day as penalty. The Bank has been directed to pay Rs. 3,000 and 2,000 as compensation and litigation cost respectively.
7. Mr. Jaiswal, learned Counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that the complaint case, filed on behalf of the Guarantor was not maintainable. He relied on the order passed by this Commission on 15.7.2016 in R.P. No. 5 of 2016.
8. The said order passed in R.P. No. 5 of 2016 is of any help to the Bank in asmuchas in that case, the Guarantor claimed NOC saying that he owed the liability of the vehicle in question and paid instalment, whereas, in the present case, the complainant claimed return of the security documents, on the ground that the borrower had paid the entire dues of the Bank. Thus, in our opinion, the present complaint was maintainable, so far as, non-return of the documents are concerned.
9. Similarly, the other judgment dated 12.5.2008 passed by this Commission in FA No. 112 of 2008 is of no help to the Bank, as the facts of the present case are absolutely different from the said case. Further, the judgment reported in (sic), is also not relevant in the present case, as admittedly, in the present case, the Bank dues were paid during the pendency of the suit, and then the complainant claimed return of her documents.
10. Mr. Jaiswal then submitted that no objection certificate dated 4.2.2010, (Annexure 7) to this appeal, was already given.
But it appears that the same was given in the name of the firm and one of its partner-Shree Bhagwan Kelanka. Therefore, admittedly, no dues certificate has not been issued in favour of the complainant, who was the Guarantor.
11. So far, return of documents is concerned, it appears that the borrower paid the Bank dues on 12.3.2009 and accordingly, the Bank filed a petition for withdrawal the suit. However, the borrower objected to the withdrawal saying that their counter claim was pending. But there is nothing to show, as to what steps were taken by the Bank for obtaining the documents from the Court. Even, it is not known, what steps were taken after the disposal of the title appeal on 25.5.2015.
12. On this, Mr. Jaiswal submitted that the two registered deeds, were handed over to the complainant on 4.5.2016, as per the receipt granted by her - Annexure 6 to this appeal.
13. There is no denial of such receipts by the respondent-complainant.
14. But it appears that the sale deeds were handed over after about 5 months of expiry of the period granted by the District Forum. There is no explanation for such delay. A vague and general statement has been made in paragraph 10 of the present appeal that the original documents could be obtained from the Civil C
