STATE BANK OF INDORE Vs. EMARAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant along with Hamir Singh, Takht Singh and Smt. Kasturi Bai, had purchased a tractor for which loan was obtained from the petitioner Bank. When there was delay in payment of instalments by the respondent, the vehicle was seized and certain demands were raised by the petitioner against the respondent/complainant, on account of outstanding/unpaid loan amount. When no settlement was reached between the parties about the outstanding amount, a complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was also dismissed, hence this revision petition before us.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner remained absent despite knowledge of today's date. We heard the learned Counsel for the respondent and go on to pass on orders based on the material on record. Basic facts are not in dispute, hence not being gone into. The only point agitated by the respondent relates to disallowing the amount of Rs. 11,459/- which the petitioner claims as "Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation" (DICGC) charges. While the contention of the petitioner is that under the Hypothecation agreement, these charges could be levied and recovered from the respondent/complainant, the case of the complainant is that they are not a party to any such insurance which the petitioner might have obtained to secure his loan. We have seen the written version filed by the petitioner, which reads as under: