This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/OPs, Secretary , Post & Telegraph and others against the order dated 26.3.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab Chandigarh (for short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.867 of 2010. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant had opened an RD Account with the OP/petitioner for five years and the monthly instalment was Rs.4,000/-. However, in the 4th year on 23.10.2003 a loan of Rs.40,000/- was taken by the complainant. Though the maturity was on 20.7.2004 but the RD was extended for further five years to be matured on 20.7.2009. The dispute was raised by the OP that one instalment of Rs.4,000/- was not paid by the complainant during the first five years of the account. As the total amount of maturity was not being paid to the complainant, the complainant filed a Consumer Complaint No. 1069 of 2009 before the District Forum, Amritsar. 3. The complaint was resisted by the OP/petitioner on the ground that one instalment was not paid and a loan of Rs.40,000/- was taken by the complainant, hence, after adjustment the payable amount comes to Rs.8,22,720/- only and therefore, the full maturity amount of Rs.8,96,000/- cannot be paid. The District Forum vide order dated 25.3.2010 after considering the submissions of both the parties allowed the complaint as under: “In view of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party shall pay maturity amount after adjusting loan amount and deducting subscription for October, 2003 at the agreed rate of interest @ 11.5% till payment. Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses. Entire amount would be paid by the opposite party to the complainant by way of bank draft or account payee’s cheque within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of orders; failing which proceedings u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act would be initiated against the opposite party.” 4. The OP/petitioner preferred an appeal bearing no.867 of 2010 before the State Commission against the order of the District Forum. The State Commission vide its order dated 26.3.2014 modified the order of the District Forum and ordered the OP/petitioner to pay Rs.8,96,000/- the full maturity amount to the complainant . 5. Hence, the present revision petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the State Commission has grossly erred in passing the impugned order as the State Commission has not cared to take note of the fact that the complainant had taken a loan of Rs.40,000/- in the year 2003 and the same was to be adjusted from the maturity amount as ordered by the District Forum. It was also argued that no appeal was filed by the complainant and therefore, State Commission had no power to enhance the total amount to be paid to the complainant which the District Forum had already ordered. The learned counsel emphasized that the loan was given at the interest rate of 15% per annum and neither the loan amount nor the interest has been paid by the complainant. It is stated by the learned counsel that according to the rules of the Department, after adjusting the loan amount as well as the non-paid instalment, only payable amount comes to Rs.8,22,720/- and the same has been paid to the complainant on 27.7.2010. On maturity also the same amount was being paid to the complainant . However, he refused to accept the amount. Though the State Commission has noted in its order that loan amount of Rs.40,000/- was to be refunded by the complainant, but in the final operative portion of the order, this fact has not been mentioned at all. Hence, the order of the State Commission is prima facie not correct even as per the record and therefore, the order needs to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant stated that the complainant agrees with the fact that the loan of Rs.40,000/- was taken in the year 2003 and the same has to be adjusted by the OP while making the final payment of the maturity amount. However, he disputed that one instalment of October, 2003 was not paid. He stated that the District Forum had already ordered the adjustment of loan amount as well as of the non–paid instalment from the maturity amount. However, the OP still preferred an appeal before the State Commission. Whatever the amount is to be received by the complainant is being delayed due to pending litigation. It is stated by learned counsel that the pass book shows the entry of instalment of Rs.4,000/- of October, 2003 and the State Commission has observed this fact in its order. 9. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments of both the learned counsel and perused the record. 10. So far as the missing instalment of October, 2003 is concerned, the State Commission has clearly found the assertion of the petitioner/OP as against their own record of pass book which contains all the monthly entries of payments made which are duly stamped. As the amount is very meagre I do not consider it necessary to take into account this amount as State Commission has already given a finding of fact based on evidence. 11. So far as the question of loan amount is concerned it has been agreed by both the parties that the loan of Rs.40,000/- was taken by the complainant on 23.10.2003. It is clear from the order of the State Commission that State Commission has not considered the recovery of loan amount alongwith interest from the maturity amount of the RD account. The State Commission has also set aside the order for compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the District Forum but the fact is that no order of compensation was passed by the District Forum . On the basis of these two material irregularities in the order of the State Commission, the order of the State Commission cannot be sustained and needs to be set aside. Accordingly, the order of the State Commission is set aside and order of the District Forum dated 25.3.2010 is upheld with the amendment that no adjustment of the missed instalment of Rs.4,000/- shall be made. It is further clarified that adjustment of the loan amount alongwith interest shall be deducted from the maturity amount of Rs.8,96,000/-. It is clarified that interest of 11.5% shall only be applicable till the date of maturity of the RD and after the date of maturity, simple interest @ 8% per annum shall be payable from the date of maturity till actual payment. As the payment of Rs.8,22,720/- has been made on 27.7.2010, any payable amount over and above Rs.8,22,720/- shall carry interest @ 8% per annum till its actual payment to the complainant. The revision petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. 12. There shall be no order as to cost. |
