SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
Through Video Conferencing
Andhra Pradesh Co-Op Housing Federations Ltd. – Petitioner
versus
P. Kamalamma and Anr. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.4798 of 2012
(Against the Order dated 22/08/2012 in Appeal No.862/2010 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
Decided on 1.2.2021

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Tuhin, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Chandra Mohan, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2: None

IMPORTANT POINT
“Entire loan amount if paid title document as pledged has to be released.”

Headnote:

Consumer Protect Act, 2019 – Section 58 – Housing loan – Return of documents pledged – Scope – Complainants husband took a loan of Rs. 2 lakhs for construction of house – Plea of petitioner that entire loan amount was not cleared by complainant, therefore the documents pledged by deceased husband cannot be released – As per materials on record, entire loan amount found paid by complainant – Fora below thus rightly directed to return the original title documents – Interference with declined.

Held: In the present case, as the admitted facts show, the Complainant’s husband took a loan of Rs.2 Lakhs from the Respondent No.2 for the construction of the house and the loan amount was sanctioned by the Petitioner. The contention of the Petitioner is that the entire loan amount was not cleared by the Complainant and therefore, the documents which were pledged by the deceased husband of the Complainant cannot be released. He has argued on this point at length. Before the District Forum, all the parties led their evidences and in Appeal before the State Commission, the Petitioner subsequently filed additional evidences. The State Commission after considering all the evidences led before the District Forum.

I have perused the document dated 11.01.2008 placed at page no.125 of the PDF file which also clearly shows that the entire loan amount stands paid by the Complainant. Therefore, it is clear that the findings of the Foras below are based on the evidences led before it. I found no perversity in the impugned order. There is no jurisdictional error as well in the impugned order. The Revision Petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. Litigation costs of Rs.15,000/- is awarded to the Complainant which shall be paid within eight weeks by way of demand draft. (Paras 8 to 9)

Result: Petition Dismissed.

ORDER (ORAL)

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member.—The present Revision Petition, under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) has been filed against the order 22.08.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.862 of 2010. The Petitioner had filed the said Appeal against the order dated 13.05.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kadapa (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.129 of 2009 filed by the Complainant. The Petitioner was the Opposite Party No.2 in the said Complaint.

2. It is argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the concurrent findings of the Foras below are premised on the wrong appreciation of the facts. It is submitted that since the loan amount is due towards the Complainant/Respondent No.1, the relevant documents pledged towards the loan cannot be released to him. It is submitted that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and therefore, is liable to be set aside.

3. It is argued by learned Counsel for the Complainant/Respondent No.1 that the letter dated 11.01.2008 written by the Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner itself shows that the entire loan amount etc. had been cleared by the Complainant and nothing was due and therefore, the stand taken by the Petitioner is contrary to the facts proved on record. It is submitted that the findings of the Foras below are based on the evidences led before it and therefore, are not perverse. It is further argued that this Commission is not permitted to substitute its own opinion to that concurrent finding of the Foras below in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

4. I have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1. None is present on behalf of Respondent No.2

5. It is a settled proposition of law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of pronouncements that this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate and re-assess the findings and reach to its own conclusion or findings on the facts of the case, moreso if the findings of the Foras below are concurrent. It has been held that the only limited revisional jurisdiction with this Commission has, is to see whether the findings of the Foras below are perverse or whether the Foras below have failed to exercise its jurisdiction or have exceeded its jursidction. A finding can be said to be perverse finding when it is based on an evidence which does not form part of the record or where the material piece of evidence on record has not been considered and which evidence is of such nature which effects the entire conclusion. It has been so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “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”.

6. Again in “Lourdes Society Snehanjali G

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top