RENU SHARMA Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 13.01.2012 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission ') in FA No. 162/2011, "State Bank of Patiala versus Renu Sharma " vide which while allowing appeal, the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata allowing complaint no. 404/2009 filed by the petitioner/complainant was set aside.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner Renu Sharma used to live in flat no. 3/c, 3rd Floor, at Shivam Plaza apartment, premises number 92/B, N.K. Banerjee Street, Rishra, District Hooghly which was owned by late Akhil Chandra Banik, who had purchased the same in 1999 through a registered sale -deed. The owner Akhil Chandra Banik entered into an agreement dated 12.06.2001 with a developer M/s. Glacier Constructions for the development of the said property. The petitioner purchased the flat in question by paying a sum of Rs.20,000/ - on 23.11.2002 and then Rs.90,000/ - on 06.12.2002 and entered into an agreement with the owner and the developer. On 27.12.2002, the petitioner applied for home loan from Punjab and Sind Bank, Lindsay Street Branch. The Bank made direct payment of Rs.1,50,000/ - to the developer on 05.02.2002. The possession of the flat was delivered to the petitioner on 17.11.2003 and the Punjab and Sind Bank made direct final payment of Rs.1.83 lakh to the developer vide pay order dated 05.12.2003. The petitioner then decided to transfer the said loan from the Punjab and Sind Bank to the State Bank of Patiala/OP. Loan was sanctioned by the State Bank of Patiala and they made payment of Rs.3.28 lakh to the Punjab and Sind Bank vide pay order dated 27.01.2004. It has been alleged by the petitioner that he continued to live in that flat, when on 19.06.2007, at about 2:30PM, when he was in the office and his family was in the flat, some musclemen from the Indian Bank forcibly evicted his family from the flat. He came to know that the owner of the flat had sold the same flat to one Sital Singh, who had taken loan from Indian Bank upon mortgage of the flat, but had not repaid the said loan. The petitioner filed criminal case against the landowner and the developer, but subsequently, both of them died. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent/OP State Bank of Patiala showed negligence in not scrutinising the relevant documents of the flat at the time of giving loan to him and hence, the respondent/OP was liable to pay compensation for deficiency in service. The petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum which allowed the same and directed the State Bank of Patiala to stop deduction of EMI from the monthly salary of the complainant and also to pay him compensation of Rs.25,000/ - and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/ -. An appeal against this order was allowed by the State Commission and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) ON examination of the material on record, it is clear that the petitioner purchased the said flat from the owner/developer after raising loan from the Punjab and Sind Bank. Thereafter, he decided to take another loan from State Bank of Patiala and discharged the liability of the Punjab and Sind Bank. He is, therefore, under obligation to repay the loan taken from State Bank of Patiala. The fact that loan had been raised by Sital Singh for the same property from the Indian Bank does not lead to the conclusion that the respondent/OP State Bank of Patiala has committed any deficiency in service in any manner. We are in full agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the State Commission that once the complainant has raised loan from the State Bank of Patiala, they are duty bound to repay the same. It is also clear that the respondents/OP State Bank of Patiala had no role in dispossessing the petitioner from the said flat and hence they have not committed any deficiency in service. We, therefore, hold that the order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error and the same is upheld. The revision petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.