ORDER

This appeal has been filed with a delay of 86 days.

-2-

Complainant/appellant was sanctioned a petrol pump by HPCL in recognition of his being a sportsman of international level. With a view to make the petrol pump functional, complainant/appellant made an application to the respondents to grant him a term loan and cash credit facility. He was sanctioned a term loan of Rs.16.30 Lac and working capital limit of Rs.5.25 Lac subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the site where the petrol pump was to be set up, would be mortgaged as security with the respondents. According to the appellant, on his apprising the respondent that the site and structure to be raised thereon could not be mortgaged as the same was required to be leased out to HPCL in terms of their letter, respondent agreed for the mortgage of another property of the complainant which consisted of a house situated in Shimla. The said house was worth Rs.44 Lac. Mortgage of the said house was created by a registered document in favour of the respondents. Two guarantors for the repayment of the loan were also provided. However, without any notice to the complainant, respondents wrote to the revenue authorities for creating a charge on the site of the petrol -3-

pump, due to which the complainant/appellant could not create lease in favour of the HPCL. Because of this HPCL did not extend certain facilities and benefit to the complainant, as a result of which appellant could not run the petrol pump profitably. That the respondents started adjusting the daily sale proceeds deposited with them against the term loan, instead of depositing them in the cash credit limit account. This made the day to day requirement of cash for running the petrol pump very difficult. The result was that the complainant/appellant had to transfer the petrol pump in favour of some other person to get out of the financial mess created for him. The Complainant/appellant liquidated his liability to the bank by paying the entire amount as per the Award of the Arbitrator in the year 2003. He filed the complaint in 2008.

Respondents on being served denied that there was any understanding with the complainant/complainant; that because of his creating mortgage in respect of his house property no charge could be created on the site of the petrol pump or the superstructure. It was also pleaded that the complaint was barred by limitation.

-4-

State Commission after appraising the entire set of pleadings and the evidence led by the parties dismissed the complaint by observing thus:

“10. Charge was created in respect of the site of the petrol pump and the structure raised thereon sometime in the year 2000 and the complainant came to know about the same in March, 2000 itself, when he wrote letter dated 15.3.2000, Annexure C-4, to the opposite parties for releasing the site of the petrol pump and the structure from the charge so that the same could be leased out to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The entire liability incurred by the complainant on account of term loan and the cash credit limit stood liquidated by the complainant in September, 2003, after the arbitrator gave the award. Grievance of the complainant is that on account of creation of charge on the site of the petrol pump and the structure raised thereon, he could not create lease and avail of certain benefits and facilities offered by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The cause of action accrued to the complainant in the year 2000. In any case, even if it be assumed that the cause of action was continuing, it ceased to be so in September, 2003, when the complainant liquidated his liability by paying the entire amount due from him on account of term loan and cash credit limit. He filed the complaint in the year 2008.

-5-

Limitation for filing a complaint is two years, per section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No application for condonation of delay has been moved, nor has any explanation been offered for delay