APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON :  13^th DECEMBER 2017

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.06.2013, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 416/2012, “Gautam Ramrao Suryawanshi versus ICICI Home Finance & Anr.”, vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order dated 10.09.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Aurangabad in consumer complaint No. 309/2011, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

2.       The facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Gautam Ramrao Suryawanshi obtained a housing loan from the Opposite Party (OPs)/respondents ICICI Home Finance Limited in October 2004.  The repayment of the said loan was agreed to be made in monthly instalments of Rs.2417/- each.  The complainant also gave 36 cheques drawn on Viswakarma People Cooperative Bank, to the OP Finance Company.   It is alleged by the complainant that he had repaid the entire loan amount in accordance with the agreement entered between the parties.  However, the OPs presented the cheques given by the complainant to his bank for encashment, despite the fact that there were no outstanding dues pending against him.  The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.38,500/- stated to have been charged excess from him.  The complainant demanded interest @24% p.a. on the said amount.  In addition, the complainant alleged that the OPs/respondents had caused harassment to him and made him sell his house, which caused financial loss of Rs.3,50,000/- to him.  The said amount of Rs.3,50,000/- should also be reimbursed to him alongwith interest @24%.  The complainant also demanded a compensation of Rs.5 lakh from the OPs against mental harassment etc. as well.

3.       The complaint was resisted by the OPs/respondents by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that the complainant was no more a consumer, as his loan account had already been closed by then.  Moreover, the claim of the complainant was time-barred.  In parawise reply to the complaint, however, the OPs/respondents admitted that certain cheques bearing No. 22497, 22499 and 22500 were wrongly and mistakenly deposited by their Manager, which was a human error.  The OPs stated in their reply as follows:-

“In reply to contents of para No. 13 of the complaint, the respondent states and submits that, the cheques bearing No. 22497, 22499 and 22500 were wrongly and mistakenly deposited by the Manager.  There was no any intention of the respondents to recover the amount against the said cheque from the complainant.  The act of deposit of the said cheque is a human error and as such no serious harm or prejudice is caused to the complainant.  On receipt of the complaint from the complainant in respect of the same, the concerned Manager had tendered apology and had shown readiness and willingness to pay the charges levied by the bankers to the complainant. ”

4.       The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties, directed the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost.  The District Forum concluded that there was no evidence to prove that any extra amount had been recovered by the OPs from the complainant.  The cheques presented by the OPs before the Bank were dishonoured, because of the instructions given by the complainant and hence, no prejudice had been caused against him.  However, the act of the OPs in wrongly presenting the cheques, had caused mental agony to the complainant.  Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission.  The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition. 

5.       During arguments, it was admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant did commit default in making timely repayment to the OPs, but he had already repaid the entire money due to the OPs and also obtained a ‘no objection certificate’, from them.  There was no reason on the part of the OPs therefore, to present the cheques for encashment and hence, their act had caused mental agony to him.  In the grounds of the revision petition, it has been stated that there was clear record of evidence pertaining to the petitioner depositing excess amount to the OPs/respondents.

6.       On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the orders passed by the consumer fora below were concurrent findings on the issue and hence, there was no ground to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.  He has drawn attention to an order passed by this Commission on 18.11.2016 in RP No. 770/2014, “Shardul Nana Chandane vs. Chandrajeet & Ors.”  The learned counsel stated that the consumer fora below had already granted relief to the complainant/petitioner and there was no justification to make any change in the same.  The cheques presented by the OPs had been dishonoured by the Bank of the complainant on his instructions only.

7.       We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

8.       As stated above, the OP Finance Company has admitted in their written reply filed before the District Forum that due to some ‘human error’ on the part of their manager, certain cheques were presented for encashment before the Bank of the complainant, although the repayment of the entire amount due to the OPs had already been made.  It is evident, therefore, that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP Finance Company and they were liable to compensate the complainant/petitioner on this score. The consumer fora below have, therefore, rightly concluded that there was such deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony to the complainant/petitioner and they awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation.  In so far as charging excess amount from the complainant/petitioner is concerned, or the loss suffered by him due to any sale of house is concerned, there is no evidence to that effect on record, neither any cogent and convincing explanation has been presented to believe the version given by the petitioner/complainant in his consumer complaint.  We have, therefore, no reason to disagree with the findings recorded by the consumer fora below.  Moreover, it is a settled legal proposition that interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction should be made only, if there is any jurisdictional error or material defect in the orders passed by the consumer fora below.  We are supported in this view in the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Rubi Chandra Dutta vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269].” 

9.         Based on the discussion above, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed.  There is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the consumer fora below and the same are upheld.  There shall be no order as to costs.