BATALA IMPROVEMENT TRUST BATALA THROUGH SDM vs GAGAN S/O SH.ASHWANI KUMAR

The matter was passed over twice, since there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner.

On the last date of hearing, i.e., 08.12.2015, though the petitioner as well as his counsel have been duly served but there was no appearance on behalf of them and the matter was adjourned for today. Even today also there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner.

We have gone through the record.

The brief facts of the case are, that respondent/ complainant applied for a plot measuring 8 Marlas and deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- vide receipt no. 39 dated 20.11.2000, as earnest money with the petitioner/ opposite party. It is alleged, that petitioner did not allot the plot and respondent requested either to allot the plot or return the earnest money along with interest but they failed to do so. Hence, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum against the petitioner.

The consumer complaint was contested by the petitioner. In its written statement, petitioner took preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present forum as respondent is not a consumer and there was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. It was further stated, that complaint is barred by limitation as per Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

District Forum, vide its order dated 29.11.2012 has allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund Rs.20,000/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till payment to the complainant. Besides it, Rs.1,000/- as compensation was also awarded to the respondent.

Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner has filed appeal before the State Commission, which vide impugned order dated 25.10.2013 dismissed the same.

Hence, present revision petition.

Respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- as earnest money for the plot in question in the year 2000 and Consumer Complaint was filed in the year 2012. About fifteen years have elapsed, since the depositing of the amount with the petitioner. There are concurrent findings of facts given by the Fora below against the petitioner. Even otherwise also a paltry sum of Rs.20,000/- plus 6% simple interest is involved in the present revision petition. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this petition in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs Khazani and another , IV (2012) CPJ 5 SC where the court observed: "Number of litigation in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Bank, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the officers'' skin. Judicial system is over burdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion this court has reminded the Central Government, State Government and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked or resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category". The Apex Court further held; "10 . The Chief Manager stated in the affidavit that no bill was raised by the counsel for the bank for conducting the matter before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. We have not been told how much money has been spent by the bank officers for their to and fro journeys to the lawyers'' office, to the District Forum, State Forum, National Commission and to the Supreme Court. For a paltry amount of 15 ,000/-,even according to the affidavit, bank has already spent a total amount of 12 ,950/- leaving aside the time spent and other miscellaneous expenses spent by the officers of the bank for to and fro expenses etc. Further, it may be noted that the District Forum had awarded 3,000/-towards cost of litigation and compensation for the harassment caused to Smt. Khazani. Adding this amount, the cost goes up to 15,950/-. Remember, the buffalo had died 10 years back, but the litigation is not over, fight is still on for 15,000/-.

Learned counsel appearing for the bank, Shri Amit Grover, submitted that though the amount involved is not very high but the claim was fake and on inspection by the insurance company, no tag was found on the dead body of the buffalo and hence the insurer was not bound to make good the loss, consequently the bank had to proceed against Smt. Khazani.

12 . We are of the view that issues raised before us are purely questions of facts examined by the three forums including the National Disputes Redressal Commission and we fail to see what is the important question of law to be decided by the Supreme Court. In our view, these types of litigation should be discouraged and message should also go, otherwise for all trivial and silly matters people will rush to this court.

13 . Gramin Bank like the appellant should stand for the benefit of the gramins who sometimes avail of loan for buying buffaloes, to purchase agricultural implements, manure, seeds and so on. Repayment, to a large extent, depends upon the income which they get out of that. Crop failure, due to drought or natural calamities, disease to cattle or their death may cause difficulties to gramins to repay the amount. Rather than coming to their rescue, banks often drive them to litigation leading them extreme penury. Assuming that the bank is right, but once an authority like District Forum takes a view, the bank should graciously accept it rather than going in for further litigation and even to the level of Supreme Court. Driving poor gramins to various litigative forums should be strongly deprecated because they have also to spend large amounts for conducting litigation. We condemn this type of practice, unless the stake is very high or the matter affects large number of persons or affects a general policy of the Bank which has far reaching consequences.

We, in this case, find no error in the decisions taken by all fact finding authorities including the National Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost of 10,000/- to be paid by the bank to the first respondent within a period of one month. Resultantly, the Bank now has to spend altogether 25,950/- for a claim of 15,000/-,apart from to and fro travelling expenses of the Bank officials. Let God save the Gramins ."

The above quoted judgment is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. However, the question of law raised in this petition is kept open, to be decided in an appropriate case where the stakes are high and amount is substantial.

With these observations, the present revision petition stand disposed of.