The respondent/complainant had purchased 195 Kgs. of Lobia seeds from the petitioners/OPs in 2001 for total price of Rs.11,000/-. The seeds were sown in 24 acres of land. In the next three months, the crop had attained vigorous vegetative growth, but there was no pod formation. On a complaint by the respondent/complainant, the crop was inspected by officers of the State Agriculture Department as well as representative of Haryana, State Agriculture University, Hissar. The report of the latter shows that the entire crop was of fodder variety and not the (seed) vegetable variety of cowpea. Hence there was no pod formation.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3180 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 12.05.2011 in First Appeal No.2499 of 2003 of the State Commission, Haryana ) Bharat Seed Company Through its Proprietor Near Anand Cinema, Post Office Box No.104 & 52, Jodhpur- 342 001 ……….Petitioner Versus 1. Charanjit Singh S/o Shri Balwant Singh Residing at Dera Sacha Sauda, Begu Road, Sirsa 2. Vikas Traders, Through its Proprietor Shri Sant Lal Karla 57-A Janta Bhawan, Sirsa ........Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil I.Surti, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 2nd. Jan’ 2012 ORDER PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in F.A. 2499 of 2003. The State Commission has confirmed the order of the District Consumer Forum, Sirsa, which had held the OPs responsible for deficiency in service for having supplied sub-standard Lobia seeds to the Complainant. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the fora below, Bharat Seeds Company/OPs have filed the present revision petition. 2. The respondent/complainant had purchased 195 Kgs. of Lobia seeds from the petitioners/OPs in 2001 for total price of Rs.11,000/-. The seeds were sown in 24 acres of land. In the next three months, the crop had attained vigorous vegetative growth, but there was no pod formation. On a complaint by the respondent/complainant, the crop was inspected by officers of the State Agriculture Department as well as representative of Haryana, State Agriculture University, Hissar. The report of the latter shows that the entire crop was of fodder variety and not the (seed) vegetable variety of cowpea. Hence there was no pod formation. 3. The State Commission, while upholding the decision of the District Forum, rejected the argument of the OPs that the procedure prescribed under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 had not been followed inasmuch as that the seed in question was not sent for expert evaluation. This provision requires the District Forum, where the complaint of the consumer is admitted and it relates to any goods:- “where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum.” 4. This provision has been interpreted by this Commission in the case cited by the State Commission in the impugned order in National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. P.V.Krishna Reddy and others, 2009, CTJ 522 (CP) (NCDRC). The Commission has held that it is not necessary for the Complainant (Agriculturist) to have sent the seed to an appropriate laboratory for analysis/test, as an Agriculturist is not expected to conserve a portion of the seed for such an eventuality. 5. The State Commission has also observed that the Professor of the Department of Vegetable Crops, Haryana Agriculture University, Hissar had sent his report after inspection of the filed. His report was produced in evidence before the fora below. It is seen from the record that Professor S.K. Arora of the Department of Vegetable Crop, who visited the crop on 29.7.2001 reported that he did not find a single pod, though the plants showed healthy and vigorous growth. This finding directly negates the claim of the revision petitioner that the seed was of good quality and the complainant was negligent showing it. Had there being any negligence or inadequacy in the crop practices followed by the respondent/complainant, healthy vegetative growth would not have been seen by Professor S.K.Arora in his visit. 6. We have heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioner and perused the records. The revision petition has been filed against concurrent orders of the fora below. The records show that it is a case of wrong supply of seed. The report of Prof. S.K.Arora, based on his visit to the 24 acres of Cowpea crop in question, clearly shows that the crop on the ground was not of Pusa Komal or Pusa Phalguni variety but of a fodder variety. This is why the field visit disclosed robust vegetative growth, without any pod formation. The report also shows that the packets bore the names Pusa Komal and Pusa Phalguni. We find that even the purchase receipts issued by respondent No.2, Vikas Traders on four different dates in April, 2001 to the Complainant are for these two varieties only. Documentary evidence thus, clearly establishes that the seed actually supplied was not of the variety, which was supposed to have been sold to the Complainant. 7. Counsel for the revision petitioner also drew our attention to the decision of this Commission in Mahyco Seeds Ltd. Vs. G. Venkata Subba Reddy & Ors., 2011 (2) CPR 35 (NC) in support of his claim, that genetic defect in seed cannot be detected through visual inspections and would need to be tested in a scientific laboratory. The facts of the case cited by learned counsel for the revision petitioner are very different. The report of the inspecting agriculture officer had shown that the crop of cotton had failed due to genetic defect in the seed. Per contra, in the case before us, the question is not of the quality of seed but of its very identity. Document on records clearly show that the seed supplied was not the seed purchased. Therefore, the revision petitioner cannot seek any support from the decision cited by his counsel. 8. For the reasons above we do not find any merit in this revision petition. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error, which could justify intervention of this Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is accordingly, dismissed with no orders as to costs. ………………Sd/-………….. (JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER ….…………Sd./-………………. (VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER s./-

The perusal of the inspection report dated 25.9.2001 reveals that the meter was got installed by the complainant inside the hospital whereas as per rules it was to be installed at the front portion of the hospital. In other words the complainant was getting benefit of the hole in the meter by getting the meter installed inside so that theft of energy could be easily made. It is well settled principle of law that a consumer in whose custody the meter is provided by the Nigam is under a legal obligation to keep it intact and any tempering with it directly or indirectly shall be termed theft of energy under the circumstances of the case. In the present case admittedly the checking was conducted by the Vigilance staff in the company of other officials of the Nigam and their report cannot be disbelieved without any cogent, convincing and corroborating evidence contrary to it. The complainant in the present case has miserably failed to disclose as to what was the reason for developing a hole inside the meter. Checking report dated 25.9.2001 which is signed by the complainant as well as the members of the checking party, is sufficient to prove it a case of theft of energy. The observations of the District Consumer Forum, Sirsa that the seals were found intact and therefore, there was no question of committing theft of electric energy but this observation of the District Forum is not sustainable for the reason that it is a novel way of committing theft of energy because consumer inserts some hard object through the hole of the meter to stop the movement of the disc in order to abstract energy dishonestly without tempering of the seal. It is further observed that by drilling a hole it is the complaint who is to be benefited with respect to committing of theft of energy by inserting some hard object in the hole of the meter to stop the movement of the disc. It is not the case of the complainant that at the time of installation of the meter the said hole was there. It is also not the case of the complainant that the hole has developed due to any climatic change or with passage of time. The appellants-opposite parties have produced the meter in question which has a drilling hole in it. Admittedly the drilling process is the outcome of the nefarious and illegal designs of complainant to commit theft of energy through the hole. No person would drill a hole in the meter unless he gets any benefit from it. Hence this case is distinguishable from the observation made in Gautam Plastic and Ram Nath case (supra).

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 2390 OF 2010 (From the Order dated 11.05.2010 in Appeal No. 2994/2002 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) Dr. Laxman Dass Bansal Petitioner C/o Bansal Hospital Old Bus Stand, Rania Tahsil Rania Rania District Sirsa Versus 1. Executive Engineer Respondents (OP) Division Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sirsa Distt. Sirsa 2. SDO (OP) Sub-Division Ph-1, Sas Nagar Branch Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sirsa Distt. Sirsa BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Himanshu Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Alok Sangwan, Advocate Pronounced on : 3rd January 2012 ORDER PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER On 25.9.2001, the vigilance staff of the respondents inspected the electricity connection installed in the hospital premises of the petitioner/complainant and during the checking, it was noticed that in the left side body of the meter at the level of the disk, there was a hole through which by inserting any artificial object the disk of the meter could be stopped in view of the sale circular no.4/2001, sale circular no.61/2000 and sale circular no.38/1998. It was, therefore, recorded as a case of abstracting energy dishonestly and hence the account of the complainant required to be overhauled. The checking report was prepared at the site which was signed by the members of the checking party as well as the complainant in token of its correctness. Thereafter by overhauling the account of the complainant, he was imposed penalty of Rs.1,27,959/- vide notice bearing memo no.1251 dated 25.9.2001. The complainant/petitioner challenged the impugned penalty by filing complaint before the District Forum on the ground that at the time of inspection by the vigilance staff there was no artificial object used in the meter through which the disk of the meter could be stopped. It was further stated by him that the meter was required to be sent to the Chief Electrical Inspector as required under section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act and the OPs/respondents had wrongly imposed the impugned penalty upon him without affording any opportunity of hearing. 2. Upon notice, the OPs/respondents appeared and resisted the claim of the petitioner and justified the impugned penalty and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum by its brief order dated 6.11.2002 accepted the complaint, quashed the notice in question imposing the impugned penalty and directed the respondents to refund the amount already deposited by the petitioner in response to the notice. Litigation expense of Rs. 5,00/- was also directed to be paid by the respondents to the petitioner. While accepting the complaint, the District Forum relied on the case of Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Balvant Singh [1997 (1) CPC 579] wherein it has been held that mere finding of a hole in the meter does not amount to theft of energy. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the respondents challenged the same before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (‘State Commission’ for short) by filing an appeal before it. The State Commission vide its impugned order dated 11.5.2010 has reversed the finding of the District Forum, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. It is against this order of the State Commission that the petitioner/complainant has filed the present revision petition. 4. Arguments of Mr. Himanshu Upadhyay, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Alok Sangwan, Advocate for the respondent have been heard. We find that the District Forum has accepted the complaint by passing a very brief and cryptic order in which the contentions of the petitioner were accepted on the basis of Balwant Singh’s case (supra) without considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. On the other hand, we find that the State Commission has carefully considered the rival contentions based on the documents and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. The State Commission has recorded the following reasons in support of its order:- “After having considered the rival contention of both the parties we do not subscribe to the contention raised on behalf of the respondent-complainant for the reason that each and every case has its own footings. In the present case admittedly the checking was conducted by high ranking officer of the Vigilance department of the Nigam. The perusal of the inspection report dated 25.9.2001 reveals that the meter was got installed by the complainant inside the hospital whereas as per rules it was to be installed at the front portion of the hospital. In other words the complainant was getting benefit of the hole in the meter by getting the meter installed inside so that theft of energy could be easily made. It is well settled principle of law that a consumer in whose custody the meter is provided by the Nigam is under a legal obligation to keep it intact and any tempering with it directly or indirectly shall be termed theft of energy under the circumstances of the case. In the present case admittedly the checking was conducted by the Vigilance staff in the company of other officials of the Nigam and their report cannot be disbelieved without any cogent, convincing and corroborating evidence contrary to it. The complainant in the present case has miserably failed to disclose as to what was the reason for developing a hole inside the meter. Checking report dated 25.9.2001 which is signed by the complainant as well as the members of the checking party, is sufficient to prove it a case of theft of energy. The observations of the District Consumer Forum, Sirsa that the seals were found intact and therefore, there was no question of committing theft of electric energy but this observation of the District Forum is not sustainable for the reason that it is a novel way of committing theft of energy because consumer inserts some hard object through the hole of the meter to stop the movement of the disc in order to abstract energy dishonestly without tempering of the seal. It is further observed that by drilling a hole it is the complaint who is to be benefited with respect to committing of theft of energy by inserting some hard object in the hole of the meter to stop the movement of the disc. It is not the case of the complainant that at the time of installation of the meter the said hole was there. It is also not the case of the complainant that the hole has developed due to any climatic change or with passage of time. The appellants-opposite parties have produced the meter in question which has a drilling hole in it. Admittedly the drilling process is the outcome of the nefarious and illegal designs of complainant to commit theft of energy through the hole. No person would drill a hole in the meter unless he gets any benefit from it. Hence this case is distinguishable from the observation made in Gautam Plastic and Ram Nath case (supra). A consumer who commits theft of energy by deceitful illegal means by tampering with the meter cannot claim any benefit under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the appellants-opposite parties.” 5. We find that the impugned order passed by the State Commission is a detailed and well-reasoned order and we agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Admittedly the seal of the meter was intact and no other material has been placed before us to hold a view contrary to the view taken by the State Commission. The impugned order, therefore, does not call for any interference from us while exercising our revisional jurisdiction under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. The revision petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed with no order as to costs. ……………………………… (V.B. GUPTA, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ……………………………… (SURESH CHANDRA) MEMBER SS/

2. Petitioners were the complainants before the District Forum. They alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, in that the respondents had failed to execute the agreement for sale even after the complainants had made full payment of the consideration for the flats and received the possession thereof from the respondents. The respondents/opposite parties (OPs) resisted the complaint mainly on the ground that the cost of construction had risen steeply leading to their demand for escalation charges at the rate of Rs.200/- per square foot and that each of the complainants had not paid Rs.2,40,000/- towards the original agreed sale price of the flat.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.3129 OF 2011 (From the order dated 25.03.2011 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in First Appeal no. A/09/941) Ankit Bhatnagar C/o P. K. Bhatnagar Petitioner Resident of 25, Panvel Co-operative Industrial Estate Panvel - 410206 versus 1. Vijay Constructions 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Respondents 2. Vijay Angre 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai REVISION PETITION NO.3130 OF 2011 (From the order dated 25.03.2011 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in First Appeal no. A/09/941) Vishal Bhatnagar C/o P. K. Bhatnagar Petitioner Resident of 25, Panvel Co-operative Industrial Estate Panvel – 410206 versus 1. Vijay Constructions 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Respondents 2. Vijay Angre 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai REVISION PETITION NO.3131 OF 2011 (From the order dated 25.03.2011 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in First Appeal no. A/09/942) Mrs. G.P. Bhatnagar C/o P. K. Bhatnagar Petitioner Resident of 25, Panvel Co-operative Industrial Estate Panvel – 410206 versus 1. Vijay Constructions 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Respondents 2. Vijay Angre 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai REVISION PETITION NO.3132 OF 2011 (From the order dated 25.03.2011 of the Mumbai State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata in First Appeal no. A/09/939) Ms. Priyanka Bhatnagar C/o P. K. Bhatnagar Petitioner Resident of 25, Panvel Co-operative Industrial Estate Panvel - 410206 versus 1. Vijay Constructions 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Respondents 2. Vijay Angre 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA MEMBER For the Petitioners Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate Pronounced on 4th January 2012 ORDER ANUPAM DASGUPTA These revision petitions are directed against the order dated 25.03.2011 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeals no. A/ 09/940, A/ 09/941, A/09/942 and A/09/939. The State Commission dismissed each of these appeals though the Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (in short, ‘the District Forum’) had, by its common order dated 21.05.2009, partially allowed the complaints. As the facts underlying each revision petition/appeal/complaint are more or less identical except the names of the petitioner/complainant, these revision petitions are being dealt with by this common order. 2. Petitioners were the complainants before the District Forum. They alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, in that the respondents had failed to execute the agreement for sale even after the complainants had made full payment of the consideration for the flats and received the possession thereof from the respondents. The respondents/opposite parties (OPs) resisted the complaint mainly on the ground that the cost of construction had risen steeply leading to their demand for escalation charges at the rate of Rs.200/- per square foot and that each of the complainants had not paid Rs.2,40,000/- towards the original agreed sale price of the flat. 3. On consideration of the pleadings, evidence and documents brought on record by the parties, the District Forum directed the OPs to jointly and severally execute the agreement for sale on each complainant by paying the balance consideration for the flat in question. The District Forum further awarded to each complainant Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards cost. 4. Aggrieved by the directions to pay the balance cost to the OPs, each complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission with the result already noticed. 5. We have heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar and gone through the documents brought on record. The State Commission dismissed each appeal mainly on the grounds that the letter dated 26.05.1995 issued by the respondents/OPs acknowledging the receipt of payment, but did not state that the amount had been received towards the payment of the cost of the flat in question. 6. The letters in question, each dated 26.05.1995 and addressed to the respective complainant/petitioner, read as under: RECEIPT OF PAYMENT Received Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakh forty thousand only) cheque no. 292546 dated 23/05/1995 from Master Ankit Bhatnagar as a friendly loan with interest 2% per month for the period of six months from today. I am bound to repay the amount to Master Ankit Bhatnagar within stipulated time. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For M/s Vijay Constructions [Proprietor] RECEIPT OF PAYMENT Received Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakh forty thousand only) cheque no. 292698 dated 23/05/1995 from Master Vishal Bhatnagar as a friendly loan with interest 2% per month for the period of six months from today. I am bound to repay the amount to Master Vishal Bhatnagar within stipulated time. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For M/s Vijay Constructions [Proprietor] RECEIPT OF PAYMENT Received Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakh forty thousand only) cheque no. 292721 dated 23/05/1995 from Mrs. G.P. Bhatnagar as a friendly loan with interest 2% per month for the period of six months from today. I am bound to repay the amount to Mrs. G.P. Bhatnagar within stipulated time. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For M/s Vijay Constructions [Proprietor] RECEIPT OF PAYMENT Received Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakh forty thousand only) cheque no. 292572 dated 23/05/1995 from Kumari Priyanka Bhatnagar as a friendly loan with interest 2% per month for the period of six months from today. I am bound to repay the amount to Kumari Priyanka Bhatnagar within stipulated time. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For M/s Vijay Constructions [Proprietor]” 7. It is thus crystal clear that these payments were made prior to the letters dated 14.07.1999 written by the respondents confirming the agreement to sell a flat to each of the complainants in “Siddhi Apartments”. Further, as correctly held by the State Commission, none of the receipts, even by implication, suggests that the payment of Rs.2,40,000/- was in any way connected with either any ongoing or future construction by the respondents. 8. In view of this, there is no ground for us to interfere with the impugned orders of the State Commission. The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, on request, the petitioners are granted the liberty to seek redressal (in respect of recovery of the acknowledged loan amount and interest in each case) before the appropriate civil court, if so advised and also seek the benefit of the Supreme Court’s ruling in similar context in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v P. S. G. Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583. Sd/- …………………………………. [Anupam Dasgupta] Presiding Member Sd/- …………………………………. [Suresh Chandra] Member Satish

The allegation related to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/OP in that redemption proceeds of investments made in the Children Gift Growth Fund Scheme, 1986 (in short, ‘the CGGFS) of the Unit Trust of India (UTI) by the complainant and the members of his family for the benefit of the minors in four out of nine cases had not been remitted to the complainant. The complainant also challenged the legal validity of premature termination of the CGGFS scheme. 3. The defence of the OP before the District Forum was that the CGGFS was no doubt prematurely terminated but this was done in accordance with the statutory authority vested in the UTI/successor-Administrator in terms of clause 33 of the scheme. Further, the redemption proceeds of the investments could not be remitted to the complainant in all the nine cases because the option forms for remitting the proceeds had not been received from the complainant in all cases before the due date of 16.02.2004. As a result, the ARS Bonds and interest warrants in respect of the four cases in question had been prepared subsequently and would be sent along with the interest warrant on receipt of the requisite forms to be filled in by the complainant. Thus, it was claimed on behalf of the OP that no loss had been caused to the complainant because of issuance of ARS bonds. 4. On consideration of the pleadings and material brought on record, the District Forum held that the OP had validly terminated the CGGFS and correctly remitted the redemption proceeds of the investments correctly to the complainant in five cases. Accepting the contention of the OP in the remaining four cases, the District Forum also noticed that the ARS Bonds had been prepared and would be dispatched along with the interest warrants to the complainant, on the latter filing the requisite forms. Therefore, holding that the OP had not committed any deficiency in service, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 129 OF 2007 (From the order dated 06.11.2006 of the Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradoon in First Appeal no. 219 of 2005) M. L. Agrawal, son of Late Pyare Lal Resident of Nainital Road, Ranibagh Petitioner Nainital - 263126 versus Regional Manager and Administrator UTI Investment Services Ltd. 174, 1st Floor, Rajendra Bhavan Respondent Rajendra Place, New Delhi BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA MEMBER For the Petitioner In Person For the Respondent Mr. Dharam Dev, Advocate Pronounced on 4th January 2012 ORDER ANUPAM DASGUPTA This revision petition challenges the order dated 06.11.2006 of the Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradoon (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 219 of 2005. By this order, the State Commission, after detailed discussion of the pleadings and evidence, directed the opposite party (OP)/respondent to ensure that 6.60% Tax Free ARS Assured Return Scheme Bonds of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) along with upto date interest warrants were sent to the complainants within one month from the date of the order. 2. The petitioner was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nainital (in short, ‘the District Forum’). The allegation related to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/OP in that redemption proceeds of investments made in the Children Gift Growth Fund Scheme, 1986 (in short, ‘the CGGFS) of the Unit Trust of India (UTI) by the complainant and the members of his family for the benefit of the minors in four out of nine cases had not been remitted to the complainant. The complainant also challenged the legal validity of premature termination of the CGGFS scheme. 3. The defence of the OP before the District Forum was that the CGGFS was no doubt prematurely terminated but this was done in accordance with the statutory authority vested in the UTI/successor-Administrator in terms of clause 33 of the scheme. Further, the redemption proceeds of the investments could not be remitted to the complainant in all the nine cases because the option forms for remitting the proceeds had not been received from the complainant in all cases before the due date of 16.02.2004. As a result, the ARS Bonds and interest warrants in respect of the four cases in question had been prepared subsequently and would be sent along with the interest warrant on receipt of the requisite forms to be filled in by the complainant. Thus, it was claimed on behalf of the OP that no loss had been caused to the complainant because of issuance of ARS bonds. 4. On consideration of the pleadings and material brought on record, the District Forum held that the OP had validly terminated the CGGFS and correctly remitted the redemption proceeds of the investments correctly to the complainant in five cases. Accepting the contention of the OP in the remaining four cases, the District Forum also noticed that the ARS Bonds had been prepared and would be dispatched along with the interest warrants to the complainant, on the latter filing the requisite forms. Therefore, holding that the OP had not committed any deficiency in service, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. 5. In dealing with the appeal of the complainant, the State Commission also came to the conclusion that the contention of the complainant against the validity of the termination of the CGGF Scheme was not well-founded and as regards the other allegation pertaining to non-receipt of redemption proceeds in four out of the nine cases, the State Commission directed the OPs, as already noticed above. 6. The complainant has chosen to assail both these findings/directions of the State Commission in this revision petition. 7. We have heard the petitioner/complainant in person and Mr. Dharam Dev, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent and considered the documents brought on record. 8. By its orders dated 10.12.2007 and 07.03.2008, this Commission had directed the respondent to pay the sum of Rs.88,278/- to the petitioner along with cost of Rs.1000/-. These directions were complied with, as noticed in the order dated 17.04.2008. The amount of Rs.88,278/- was the sum due according to the petitioner/complainant with interest upto 01.04.2004 @ 12.5% per annum on the redemption proceeds in the remaining three cases, because the ARS Bonds in respect of one of the minor (Chandresh) had been received in the meanwhile. 9. The petitioner claimed that this amount of Rs.88,278/- due on 01.04.2004 as redemption proceeds of the investments in three cases was actually paid in April 2008 by way of five cheques which could be encashed only on 30.04.2008. Accordingly, the petitioner was entitled to interest on this amount @ 12.5% from 01.05.2004 to 30.04.2008. Further, in accordance with the terms of the CGGF Scheme, the two remaining minor investors (accounting for three investments certificate) would be entitled to further compensatory interest @ 6% per annum from 01.05.2008 till attaining the age of maturity. As per the calculation furnished by the petitioner, the interest for the period 01.05.2004 to 30.04.2008 would come to Rs.45,022/- whereas that from 01.05.2008 till the respective dates of maturity of the two minors’ investments (sometime in January 2010) would come to Rs.8,404/-.Thus, the petitioner claimed further payment of Rs.53,426/- out of which he acknowledged the receipt of Rs.23,531/- leaving a balance of Rs.29,395/-. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that in view of this Commission’s direction the respondent had paid Rs.88,278/- as the maturity value of the investments as on 01.04.2004. This included interest/return @ 12.5% per annum, as the petitioner had demanded. The legal validity of the respondent prematurely terminating the CGGFS could not be questioned, as had already been held by both the Fora below. From the petitioner’s admission before the District Forum, it was also quite clear he received/accepted the Bonds in one case and also encashed them. The ARS Bonds carried interest @ 6.60% per annum. Accordingly, the respondents had paid interest of Rs.23,351/- for the period from 01.04.2004 to 30.04.2008 on the principal amount of the redemption value of the investments when payment due in the three remaining cases was made before this Commission in accordance with its directions. This payment of Rs.23,351/- had been acknowledged by the petitioner/complainant. Therefore, no further amount was payable. 11. After careful consideration of the documents and calculations, we are in agreement with Mr. Dharam Dev that the payment due to the petitioner/complainant in accordance with the well-reasoned orders of the State Commission had been made along with interest, as per the admissible rate, for the period of delay that had taken place in making these payments. Therefore, there is no ground for us to pass any further directions beyond what has already been done by this Commission, in view of the payments made by the respondent in April 2008 and thereafter. 12. The revision petition is disposed of in the foregoing terms. Sd/- …………………………………. [Anupam Dasgupta] Presiding Member Sd/- …………………………………. [Suresh Chandra] Member Satish

The respondent was the complainant before the District Forum. As an employee of the petitioner Bank at Chandigarh, he availed of housing loan of Rs. 5 lakh from the Bank’s Zonal Office at Panchkula. The equated monthly installment (EMI) for repayment of the loan was Rs.2780/-. The rate of interest was concessional at 5.10% per annumupto to the loan of Rs.1.10 lakh and 11.10% above the said amount. The loan had to be repaid in 20 years or 70 years of the employee’s age, whichever was earlier. The respondent opted to continue the facility of repaying the EMI till 70 years of his age.=whether the rate of interest re-worked the housing loan was the fixed rate of 13% per annum with quarterly rest, a plain reading of clause 4 (b) of the loan agreement would clearly show that this was not the case. Mr Gupta has argued that the Bank had the right to revise the rate of interest upwards under this clause. Clearly this would negate the very basic agreement that the rate of interest was fixed at 13% per annum. Both the Fora below have held that given the facts, the Bank was not justified in charging interest @ 13% per annum fixed when the relevant clause provided for otherwise. The material brought on record on this issue confirmed the validity of the respondent’s stand and also the findings of the Fora below. There is no ground for us to take a different view.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4403 OF 2010 (From the order dated 24.09.2010 of the Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in First Appeal no. 170of 2010) 1. State Bank of India Corporate Office, Blackbay Reclamation Madam Cama Road Mumbai 2. The Chief General Manager State Bank of India, Local Head Office Sector 17, Chandigarh Petitioners 3. Assistant General Manager (Administration) State Bank of India Zonal Office, Sector 5, Panchkula Haryana 4. The Branch Manager State Bank of India, R.Z. Bazar, Ambala Cantt. Haryana versus Shri N. K. Sharma Son of A. L. Sharma Respondent Resident of 25, Bankers Enclave Ambala Cantt., Haryana BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA MEMBER For the Petitioner Mr. Ram Gupta, Advocate for Mr. S. L. Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent In person Pronounced on 4th January 2012 ORDER ANUPAM DASGUPTA This revision petition challenges the order dated 24.09.2010 of the Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in appeal no. 175 of 2010. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the appellant Bank and affirmed the order dated 11.03.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, Chandigarh. 2. The respondent was the complainant before the District Forum. As an employee of the petitioner Bank at Chandigarh, he availed of housing loan of Rs. 5 lakh from the Bank’s Zonal Office at Panchkula. The equated monthly installment (EMI) for repayment of the loan was Rs.2780/-. The rate of interest was concessional at 5.10% per annum upto to the loan of Rs.1.10 lakh and 11.10% above the said amount. The loan had to be repaid in 20 years or 70 years of the employee’s age, whichever was earlier. The respondent opted to continue the facility of repaying the EMI till 70 years of his age. 3. The respondent took premature retirement under the then policy of the Bank on 31.03.2001. On such retirement, the respondent was ordinarily required to clear the entire outstanding loan out of his retirement benefits. However, the respondent sought continuation of the housing loan and some other employees also did the same. The Bank formulated a scheme under which concessional housing loans made available to the serving employees were converted into usual housing loans with interest at the applicable commercial rate. The respondent availed of this scheme whereupon the entire principal and interest liability of the housing loan outstanding on 31.03.2001 was clubbed at Rs.6,00,563/-. But the respondent paid back Rs.1,50,563/- thereby reducing the outstanding loan to the balance of Rs.4.50 lakh to which the commercial rate of interest for housing loan @ 13% per annum was applied. The EMI was accordingly re-worked and fixed at Rs.5,830/- for the remaining months upto October 2014. It was also stipulated in the said scheme that if 50% of the retired employee’s monthly pension was less than the EMI, the employee had to furnish a deposit with the Bank, the interest on which would be sufficient to meet the difference between EMI and 50% of the monthly pension amount. Since 50% pension of the respondent was Rs.3,300/- per month, he was asked to furnish a term deposit of Rs.3 lakh, interest on which, i.e., Rs.2,625/- per month was also appropriated towards the balance of the EMI. 4. The clause governing the interest on the loan in accordance with the revised/supplementary loan agreement reads as under: “I agree declare and confirm that further interest with effect from 01.04.2001 on the entire outstanding in my above housing loan account shall be repayable by me with the present commercial rate of interest @ 13% per annum with quarterly rests. I also agree, declare and confirm that the commercial rate of interest shall continue to be paid by me at the rate as and when revised by the Bank till the loan account is closed”. 5. The petitioner Bank revised the usual/commercial rate of interest on housing loan downwards in October 2003 to 8.25% per annum. The downward revision of interest continued further and such loans came to be offered by other Bank at an interest of 7.75% per annum. Accordingly, the respondent represented to the petitioner Bank in April 2004 to lower the rate of interest on the outstanding loan in accordance with the applicable commercial rate of interest on housing loans prevalent at that time. After about a year of correspondence, the respondent’s request was allowed, the loan account was recast and the EMI worked out afresh. However, in April 2006, the petitioner Bank informed the respondent that the rate of interest chargeable on his housing loan could not be reduced from 13% per annum and the facility granted to him earlier was not admissible. Accordingly, the Bank debited Rs.53,640/- to the respondent’s loan account as interest chargeable @ 13% per annum vis à vis that actually charged. The respondent represented against this decision. When nothing was done he filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner Bank and seeking reliefs like refund of the amount of Rs.53,640/-, release of the TDR of Rs. 3 lakh, charging interest at floating rate as on 19.04.2006 as against the fixed rate of 13%, compensation of Rs.5,000/- for harassment and cost of Rs.5,500/-. 6. On consideration of the pleadings, evidence, brought forwarded by the parties, the District Forum found the bank guilty of deficiency in service and issued the following directions: (7) The OPs shall, jointly and severally, do the following: (i) To refund the amount of Rs.53,640/- to the complainant for the wrongful debit on account of the arbitrary change in the EMI and other terms and conditions of the loan agreement. (ii) Charge the revised rate/floating rate of interest with effect from 19.04.2006 onwards from the complainant instead of charging the fixed rate of interest @ 13% per annum as was being erroneously done present. (iii) To pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain to the complainant on account of wrongful debit of the excessive amount of interest from the housing loan account of the complainant. (iv) To pay litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. (v) To release the FDR of Rs.3.00 lakh, which is already under the lien of the OPs in respect of the housing loan, if the same is not required by the OPs in connection with the part payment of the revised/reduced EMIs for repayment of the housing loan. In addition, the entire housing loan account of the complainant be recast and the revised statement of the said account be supplied to the complainant after due re-scheduling/rephrasing of the account. (8) The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs, jointly and severally, within a period of six weeks from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall, jointly and severally, pay the sum of rs.63,640/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e., 29.04.2009, till the date of realization, besides complying with the order as at (v) above”. 7. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the Bank went up in appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed the appeal by its impugned order dated 24.09.2010. This resulted in the present revision petition being filed by the petitioner Bank. 8. We have heard Mr. Ram Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person and gone through the documents brought on record. Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent have also submitted their written arguments, which we have considered. 9. The main ground urged by Mr. Gupta on behalf of the petitioner Bank is that the scheme allowing the retired employees (who took voluntarily retirement in 2001) the facility of repaying the housing loan till they attaining the age of 70 years was a beneficial scheme and provided for fixed interest @ 13 % per annum with quarterly rests. Therefore, such employees, including the respondent, could not be allowed the further benefit of lower rate of interest when the prevalent rate of interest on housing loan fell because of the general market conditions. The second limb of Mr. Gupta’s argument is that the clause relating to interest provided for fixed rate of 13% with quarterly rests. While the Bank was entitled to revise the rate of interest upward under this clause it did not mean that the interest rate according was variable/floating and not fixed. Thirdly, the respondent admitted in his letter dated 29.07.2007 that the rate of interest (13% per annum) was fixed. Finally, Mr. Gupta has argued that the complaint was time-barred as the complaint was filed after two years from the letter dated 19.04.2005. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, the respondent in person has submitted that the Bank had failed to explain the calculation of the amount of Rs.53,640/- that was debited to the respondent account despite this Commission’s direction. Moreover, the basic point regarding the rate of interest chargeable on the re-structured housing loan with effect from 01.04.2001 was governed by clause 4 (b) of the loan agreement. This clause specially provided for “commercial rate of interest” as and when revised by the Bank till the loan account was closed. If the Bank could rely on this clause to claim that it could charge higher rate of interest if the commercial rate of interest went up it was equally bound to charge lower prevailing commercial rate/rates of interest depending on the market condition. Further, having accepted this argument of the respondent to re-work the interest liability in April 2005 the Bank could not unilaterally revise this in violation of clause 4 (b) of the Agreement and debit Rs.53,640/- to the complainant’s loan account. 11. It may notice at the outset that in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, the State Commission has dealt with the question if the complainant was barred by limitation. The State Commission’s findings on this issue are reproduced below: “It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the complainant/respondent had been informed vide letter (Annexure C-16) dated 19.04.2006 declining his request for reduction in the rate of interest and therefore, the complainant/respondent should have challenged the same within two years i.e. by 19.04.2008. He, however, filed the present complaint on 29.04.2009 and according to the learned counsel for the OPs/appellants, the complaint is barred by time. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent in this respect has argued that Annexure C-16 was not the end of the matter because the complainant filed a representation and correspondence continued between the parties as the case of the complainant remained under consideration. When the complainant requested the OPs/appellants through his letter dated 09.11.2006, he was informed on 21.11.2006 through letter (C-24) that the OPs/appellants were reexamining the matter and would advise him shortly. Thereafter, the OPs/appellants issued a letter C9-25) on 05.12.2006 informing the complainant that the matter was under consideration of appropriate authority. The representation of the complainant against the letter dated 19.04.2006 was, therefore, still under consideration and had not been decided by the OPs/appellants when the present complaint was filed. The counsel for the respondent/complainant then referred to Annexure C-20, which is a letter sent by the OPs/appellants to the Secretary, Banking Ombudsman, New Delhi, in the concluding paragraph of which, it was mentioned that the ex-employee were informed about the actual position vide their letter dated 08.10.2007 and aggrieved by the said letter, the complainant has lodged the present complaint with him. In the next para, it is mentioned that they have already explained the reasons to Shri Sharma (complainant/respondent) for charging fixed rate of interest on his housing loan vide letter dated 08.10.2007 etc., etc. It means that the complainant was informed by the OPs vide letter dated 08.10.2007 and the matter had not finally ended on 19.04.2006 on the issuance of the letter (C-16). Otherwise also, it is a continuing cause of action whereby every month fixed rate of interest is being charged from the complainant instead of floating rate of interest as agreed to between the parties and the complainant giving fresh cause of action every month and therefore, the present complainant cannot be said to be barred by time”. 12. It is thus clear that the contention that the complaint was barred by limitation under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not valid. 13. As regards the substantive issue on whether the rate of interest re-worked the housing loan was the fixed rate of 13% per annum with quarterly rest, a plain reading of clause 4 (b) of the loan agreement would clearly show that this was not the case. Mr Gupta has argued that the Bank had the right to revise the rate of interest upwards under this clause. Clearly this would negate the very basic agreement that the rate of interest was fixed at 13% per annum. Both the Fora below have held that given the facts, the Bank was not justified in charging interest @ 13% per annum fixed when the relevant clause provided for otherwise. The material brought on record on this issue confirmed the validity of the respondent’s stand and also the findings of the Fora below. There is no ground for us to take a different view. 14. However the directions of the District Forum to release the TDR of Rs.3 lakh cannot be upheld. The basic point of the complainant is regarding the rate of interest to be charged on the re-worked housing loan. The other elements of the scheme availed of by the respondent/complainant, namely, only 50% of the monthly pension being applied towards the payment of EMI, etc., cannot be altered by the directions of the Consumer Fora because there is no deficiency in service in relation thereto. If only 50% of the respondent’s pension is to be applied towards the payment of EMI, it is necessary that the payment of the balance of the EMI be also duly secured. 15. In conclusion, the revision petition is partly allowed while maintaining the findings of the Fora below regarding deficiency in the service on the part of the petitioner Bank in charging interest at the rate of 13% per annum irrespective of the provisions of the relevant clause of the loan agreement. The petitioner Bank shall therefore, credit back the sum of Rs.53,640/- to the housing loan account of the respondent and recalculate the EMI in accordance with the commercial rate of interest prevalent from time to time. The other relief of compensation of Rs.5,000/-to the respondent is maintained. The petitioner is also directed to pay a total cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent relating to the proceedings before this Commission. Sd/- …………………………………. [Anupam Dasgupta] Presiding Member Sd/- …………………………………. [Suresh Chandra] Member