NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 4797 of 2012
(From the order dated 14.09.2012 in Appeal No. 158/2012 of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur)
I.D.B.I. Bank
D-24, Durlabh Niwas,
Prithviraj Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur,
Rajasthan through Branch Manager … Petitioner/Opp. Party (OP)
Versus
1. Subhash Shah S/o Om Prakash Shah
R/o B-5, Hari Nagar, Shastri Nagar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. Sarika Shah W/o Subhash Shah
R/o B-5, Hari Nagar, Shastri Nagar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan … Respondents/Complainants
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. V.V. Harit, Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON 9th May, 2013
O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/OP against the impugned order dated 14.9.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 158 of 2012 – IDBI Vs. Subhash Shah & Anr. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing compliant was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent submitted application for sanction of loan to OP/petitioner and deposited Rs.39,326/- as process fee. Loan was not disbursed to the complainant; hence, complainant served notice on the OP for refund of process fee, but OP did not refund process fee. Complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP filed complaint before District Forum. Respondent/OP did not appear before District Forum. During pendency of complaint, OP refunded Rs.39,326/- to the complainant. Learned District Forum after hearing complainant allowed complaint and directed OP to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.39,326/- from 5.10.2007 till date of payment and further awarded Rs.11,000/- for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at admission stage and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that loan was sanctioned, but respondent did not avail loan. It was further submitted that though process fee was not refundable; even then, process fee was refunded to avoid any litigation and respondent assured to withdraw legal proceedings; even then, legal proceedings were not withdrawn and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission also committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission and District Forum is in accordance with law, which does not call for interference; hence revision petition be dismissed.
5. Perusal of record reveals that as per Annexure P-5, loan was sanctioned by the petitioner, but disbursement of loan was subject to certain conditions, as mentioned in sanction letter. It appears that respondent did not avail loan facility due to technical difficulty as mentioned by respondent in letter dated 16.5.2010. Thus, it becomes clear that there was no deficiency on the part of petitioner. After filing of the complaint, process fee though non-refundable was refunded by the petitioner to the respondent and respondent vide Annexure P-7 dated 16.5.2010 apprised petitioner that now respondent has no grievance and he assured to withdraw all legal proceedings, which he has filed, meaning thereby, it was obligatory on the part of respondent to withdraw complaint filed before District Forum after receiving process fee. It appears that respondent has not acted with clean hands before District Forum. He has also mentioned wrong fact that loan was not sanctioned.
6. Once the respondent received process fee in full and final satisfaction, he should have withdrawn complaint as assured and he was not entitled to receive any interest on that amount as well compensation and cost as apparently there was no deficiency on the part of petitioner. Learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and granting interest, compensation and cost and learned State Commission also committed error in dismissing appeal in limine, which is liable to be set aside.
7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent is allowed and impugned order dated 14.9.2012 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 158 of 2012 – IDBI Vs. Subhash Shah & Anr. is set aside and complaint filed by the respondent before District Forum is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
..………………Sd/-……………
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J)
PRESIDING MEMBER
..……………Sd/-………………
( DR. B.C. GUPTA )
MEMBER
k
