STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. NARINDER PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State Bank of Patiala, which was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi (in short 'the District Forum') has filed this revision petition against the order dated 3.7.2007 passed by Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short 'the State Commission') dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum whereby the District Forum had directed the petitioner to hand over LIC policy No. 76215910 to the respondent complainant within one month from the passing of the order with interest @ 6% p. a. on the amount due and payable on its maturity amount from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Rs. 1,000 were awarded on account of harassment and costs of litigation.

(2.) Respondent/complainant had taken an overdraft facility from the petitioner. Respondent pledged his LIC policy No. 76215910 for Rs.50,000 with the petitioner bank by executing the Security Delivery Letter dated 7.3.1998. Respondent is the sole proprietor of M/s Jeevan Singh Joginder Singh for which he was availing Cash Credit Limit for the sum of Rs. 8,00,000 since 16.7.1998 from the petitioner Bank. Respondent duly availed the aforesaid Cash Credit facility but neglected to maintain its financial discipline and repay the outstanding amount regularly. A sum of Rs. 13,53,492 was due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner as regard the Cash Credit Limit as on 1.7.2004 besides interest, costs and expenses.

(3.) Respondent/complainant on 31.1.2005 liquidated his liability in the Overdraft Account and requested the petitioner Bank to release the LIC policy deposited by him with it. Petitioner declined to release the policy and exercising its 'General Lien' provided to the Bankers under Section 171 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, over all the monies, securities, etc. of its debtors petitioner retained the impugned LIC policy. Policy was not released as the respondent/ complainant owed substantial amount to the petitioner in the Cash Credit Account maintained by him with the petitioner.