ORAL

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal No. 2216 of 2014

1- State Bank of India, Gaur Branch, Distt. Basti

    Through Branch Manager.

2- Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Gaur

    Branch, Distt. Basti.

3- State Bank of India, Regional Office, RBO,

    Bansi Road, Bade Ban, Basti through Asst. Gen.

    Manager.                                                        …Appellants.

Versus

Devendra Kumar s/o Om Prakash Maheshwari,

R/o Kasba Babhnan, Post, Babhnan, Tehsil,

Harraiya, Distt. Basti.                                     .…Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Anshumali Sood, Advocate for appellants.

Sri O.P. Duvel, Advocate for respondent.

Date  2.8.2023

JUDGMENT

Per Sri Sushil Kumar,  Member-   This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.9.2014 passed by the Ld. District Commission, Basti in complaint case no.27 of 2013, Devendra Kumar vs. State Bank of India & ors., whereby the ld. District Forum by allowing the complaint directed the appellant/opposite party no.1 to provide the original documents to the borrower and further directed to pay Rs.2 lacs for mental agony, Rs.20,000.00 for misc. expenses and Rs.2,000.00 as cost of litigation.

We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned judgment and record available on the file.

(2)

          Ld. counsel for the appellants submitted that the complainant availed the loan from the appellant bank but he falsely alleged that the original High School Certificate and mark-sheet were deposited in the bank. The entire loan was repaid by the complainant in 2005 and the said documents were demanded in 2012. To recover the loan, the recovery certificate was issued against the borrower through Collector and the loan amount was recovered accordingly. A civil suit no.33 of 1995 was filed by the complainant which was dismissed on 8.11.2012. The complaint is time barred, hence, the judgment and order passed by the ld. District Forum is illegal.

          Ld. counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that at the time of receiving the loan from the opposite party the original documents were mortgaged before the opposite party. He further submitted that the opposite party recovered the loan but failed to return the original documents to the complainant. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the ld. District Forum is according to law and appeal should be dismissed.

          First of all, we have to decide the question of delayed filing of the complaint.

          The complainant never mentioned the date of loan in his complaint. He simply mentioned that the on 26.11.2012 a registered notice was sent to the bank for return of original documents and thereafter, a complaint case was filed on 17.1.2013. It appears that the complainant deliberately hide the date of loan and the date of repayment of loan. Therefore, we have to peruse the documents of the bank which may clear the appellant’s case that a delayed complaint was filed against

(3)

the prescribed time limit under section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          The bank has mentioned the date of loan i.e. 2.121994 and also mentioned the date of repayment i.e. 21.2.2005. Therefore, the cause of action arises in the year 2005 and the complaint could have filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action while the complainant was filed in the year 2013 by suppressing the fact regarding the date of loan and repayment. Therefore, this fact is crystal clear that a time barred complaint was filed by the complainant and the ld. District Forum passed the order on time barred complaint, which is illegal and deserves to be set aside.  

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 19.9.2014 passed by the Ld. District Commission, Basti in complaint case no.27 of 2013 is hereby set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

If any amount is deposited by the appellants at the time of filing of this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, may be returned to the appellants along-with  interest upto date.

The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.       

          (Sushil Kumar )                         (Rajendra Singh)                             

                 Member                              Presiding Member

Dated  2.8.2023

Jafri, PA I

Court 2