KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. vs CHETAN KUMAR JAIN & ANR

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2200 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 05/03/2010 in Appeal No. 62/2009 of the State Commission Rajasthan)

1. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. Regd. Office 36-38A, Nariman Bhawan, Nariman Point Mumbai - 21 Maharashtra						...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. CHETAN KUMAR JAIN & ANR R/o. Seth Kanwar Lal Ji Ka Nohra, Rampura Kota Rajasthan 2. CHANDER PRAKASH JAIN, S/O. LATE SH. PREM CHAND JAIN R/o. Seth Kanwar Lal Ji Ka Mohra, Rampura Kota Rajasthan						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

NEMO

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 18 Aug 2010

ORDER

Heard counsel for the petitioner. There are concurrent findings of two fora below. In fact, loan of Rs.10,00,000/- was sanctioned, out of which Rs.9,00,000/- was disbursed to the complainant. The balance Rs.1,00,000/- was to be disbursed later. The Bank had issued a cheque for Rs.87,775/- towards balance loan of Rs.1,00,000/- after deducting PEMII amounting to Rs.12,225/-. The State Commission has observed that the Bank has not produced evidence to show that cheque for the said PEMI had been dishonored or any notice was issued regarding non payment of PEMII and as such Bank could not deduct the said amount from the balance loan to be disbursed. For failure -2- to pay PEMII borrower is required to pay additional interest. The State Commission in the facts and circumstances of the case has reduced the compensation awarded from Rs.27,000/- to Rs.13,500/- and that the complainant was entitled to balance loan amount of Rs.1 lakhs. The order of the State Commission is just, fair and equitable. In the facts and circumstances of case, I do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as I do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.

......................J
R.K. BATTA
PRESIDING MEMBER

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Login now and unlock premium legal research