PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.02.2016 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No. 1, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 67/2016 –  D.P. Sharma Vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. by which, appeal was dismissed.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner obtained housing loan from OP/respondent of which installments were being recovered through ECS from complainant’s saving account.  On 15.6.2011, OP recovered Rs.4.80 extra with installment of Rs. 9248/- from complainant’s bank account without any prior intimation.  Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that OP recovered only installment amount and Rs.4.80 has moved out from complainant’s bank account. It was further submitted that bank was necessary party and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to deposit Rs. 4.80 in loan account of the complainant and further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- along with Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation.  Appeal filed by complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3.      Heard authorized representative of petitioner and perused record for admission purpose.

4.      Authorized representative of petitioner submitted that learned District forum committed error in allowing only Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and learned State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted.

5.      Perusal of record reveals that against alleged unauthorized recovery of Rs. 4.80, learned District Forum has already allowed excessive compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.2,000/-; even then, unnecessarily petitioner filed appeal before State Commission for enhancement of compensation.  Learned State Commission rightly dismissed appeal holding that adequate compensation and cost of proceedings had already been allowed by Fora below.

6.      I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and petitioner has without any cogent reason filed this revision petition only to waste time of the Commission and revision petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.

7.      Consequently, revision petition filed by petitioner is dismissed in limine.