BANK OF INDIA Vs. HARENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 20.11.2012 passed by State Commission in Appeal No. 659 of 2011- Bank of India VS. Harender Kumar & Others and Appeal No. 752 of 2011- Harender Kumar & Others Vs. Bank of India; by which while dismissing appeal of opposite party/complainant, appeal was partly allowed and rate of interest awarded by District Forum was enhanced.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that owner of Mittal Flour Mill availed loan from opposite party/petitioner. On account of failure in re-payment, opposite party filed proceedings before DRT, Lucknow, in which order for recovering loan was passed. On 28.3.2003, complainant/ respondent offered for purchase of Mittal Flour Mill for a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- and deposited Rs. 4.00 lakhs and submitted that remaining Rs. 8.00 lakhs will be deposited on accepting offer. It was further mentioned that in case proposal is not accepted, the amount deposited will be refunded back to the complainant. Later on, complainant came to know that Mittal Flour Mill obtained the 'No Dues Certificate' on the basis of compromise, complainant asked opposite party/petitioner for refund of deposited amount of Rs. 4.00 lakhs alongwith interest but it was not refunded. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and admitted deposit of Rs. 4.00 lakhs by complainant but submitted that this amount was deposited for adjustment in the account of Mittal Flour Mill and complainant is not entitled for refund. It was, further, submitted that intimation was given to the complainant regarding compromise with Mittal Flour Mill and complaint being barred by limitation may be dismissed. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party to refund Rs. 4.00 lakhs with 6% p.a. interest and further allowed Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation. Both the parties preferred appeal before State Commission and Learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal of opposite party but allowed appeal of complainant and rate of interest was enhanced from 6% p.a. to 12% p.a. against which this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard Learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.