Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member and Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Punjab National Bank (Erstwhile
United Bank of India) – Petitioner
versus
Saheb Lal Bhardwaj and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.3518 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 11/08/2017 in Appeal No.664/2016 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
Decided on 21.9.2023

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2:Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate along with Mr. Sudhir Bharadwaj – In person
For the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: None

IMPORTANT POINT
National Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record when the findings of the lower fora are concurrent on facts.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b)] - Services – Loan - Concurrent findings of facts – Interference by National Commission – National Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record when the findings of the lower fora are concurrent on facts. It can interfere with the concurrent findings of the fora below only on the grounds that the findings are either perverse or that the fora below has acted without jurisdiction. Findings can be concluded to be perverse only when they are based on either evidence that have not been produced or based on conjecture or surmises i.e., evidence which are either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered. The power of this Commission to review under section 21 of the Act is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order – Thus, the foras below have pronounced orders which are detailed and have dealt with all the contentions of the petitioner which have been raised before me in this revision petition. It is also seen that the orders of these fora are based on evidence on record. In view of the settled proposition of law that where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction – Petition dismissed. [Paras 6 to 19].
Result: Petition dismissed.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the “Act’) assails the order dated 11.08.2017 in First Appeal No. 664 of 2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (in short, the ‘State Commission’) arising from the order dated 23.09.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (in short, the ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint no. 85 of 2014. The State Commission’s order upholds the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint of the respondent/complainant. This order will also dispose of Revision Petition No. 3519 of 2017 which arises from the same set of facts and has the same grievance. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from RP 3518 of 2017.

2. The brief conspectus of facts, as per the petitioner/opposite party, are that the petitioner sanctioned a loan of Rs 19,00,000/- to respondents 1 and 2 under the United Housing Loan Scheme on 20.10.2010 based on their application for the stated purpose of purchase of land and construction of a house. Disbursements were made in tranches to the Savings Bank account of the respondents who made payments to the contractor (respondent no. 3) from time to time. Respondent no. 1 executed the following loan/security documents on 20.10.2010:—

(i) Demand Promissory Note for Rs 19 lakhs dated 20.10.2010;

(ii) Agreement under United Housing Loan Scheme dated 20.10.2010;

(iii) Text of consent clause from the guarantor;

(iv) Guarantor’s Consent Letter dated 22.10.2010;

(v) Letter of Set-off dated 22.10.2010;

(vi) Letter from borrower for disbursement of loan dated 22.10.2010.

Respondent no.1 and 2 also submitted a letter dated 22.10.2010 in favour of the petitioner bank for monthly deduction of loan instalments @ Rs 19,000/- from their SB Account No 17480. Respondent no.1 also submitted a letter of authority on 22.10.2010 to his employer to continue payment of his salary through the petitioner bank till liquidation of the loan. A mortgage was created for the land measuring 1200 sq ft situated at Plot no. 28, Khaitan No. 676/45, Village Sirgitti, District Bilaspur and deposited the original Sale Deed dated 20.10.2010 with the petitioner. Work of construction of the house was entrusted to respondent no.3 with whom a House Construction Agreement was executed on 30.12.2011. A total of Rs.17,00,000/- was disbursed to the loan account of respondent no.1 by the petitioner between 22.10.2010 and 28.12.2011. The petitioner issued a letter dated 07.10.2013 to respondent no.1 for default in repayment of loan instalment followed by a notice under section 13(2) read with 13(13) of SRAFAESI Act, 2002 on 20.11.2013 to respondents 1 and 2 seeking repayment of Rs.18,87,277 along with further interest and expenses with effect from 30.09.2013.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum against respondent 3 praying for completion of construction and handing over of the house as per agreement, refund of Rs 1,95,000/-, and in case the construction was not completed, Rs 9,12,763/- which was the value of the balance of the incomplete work should not be recovered from the complainants/respondent 1 & 2 who would undertake fyrther construction. Rs 2,00,000/- towards future loss due to cost escalation was also sought. The petitioner Bank was proceeded ex parte and the complaint allowed on 23.09.2016 with compensation and costs. On appeal, the State Commission was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner Bank had not filed a reply before the District Forum and did not rebut the submissions. This order is impugned before us by way of the instant Revision Petition.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent nos.1 and 2 in RP No. 3518 of 2017 and respondent no.1 in RP No. 3519 of 2017 were heard. However, respondent no.3 to 5 in RP No. 3518 of 2017 and respondent no.2 in RP no. 3519 of 2017 were pro