AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 9.7.2010 passed by the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (''State Commission'', for short) in First Appeal No.44 of 2006. Petitioner was the complainant and the respondents were opposite parties before the District Forum.
THE facts of this case, as stated in the complaint, are that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the Sibsagar Branch of the OP bank (OP No.1) in the month of September 1988 for reconstruction/renovation of his house situated at Sibsagar town. After renovation, the house was let out to the ONGC on monthly rent basis by executing a lease deed. Since the petitioner was residing at Guwahati, an arrangement was made with OP No.1 that it will collect rent from the ONGC on presentation of bills by the petitioner and deposit the same to the loan account of the petitioner till the entire loan amount was liquidated. In this regard, the petitioner also executed a power of attorney in favour of the Branch Manager, Sibsagar Branch of the OP bank. After signing of the power of attorney, the OP bank wrote a letter on 8.9.1988 to the ONGC enclosing therewith a copy of the power of attorney and requesting the ONGC to register the contents thereof in their books of accounts so that the rent was paid to the Sibsagar Branch of the OP bank in the account of the petitioner. The rented house was ready for occupation on 1.9.1988 but actually it was occupied by the ONGC on 25.5.1989 and the lease deed was executed on 19.9.1989. The petitioner was to submit house rent bills for 11 months in triplicate from May 1989 to March 1990 for arranging timely payment. But because of the delay in the occupation of the house by ONGC by a few months, the petitioner transferred Rs.50,000/- for adjustment to his loan account. According to the petitioner, the OP bank assured him about sending regular statement of loan account to him at his Guwahati address but it failed and neglected to send the same to him.
ON verification of the statement of account obtained by the petitioner, it came to his notice that the OP bank defaulted in collection of rent (from May 1989 to June 1990) and showed indifferent attitude in its dealings with the petitioner. He, therefore, brought the matter to the notice of the higher authorities of the OP bank but to no effect and the collection of the rent remained pending. In view of this, the petitioner demanded that charging of any interest for late adjustment of loan amount from the house rent was unjustified because the same had happened due to non-collection of the rent by the OP bank. On the other hand, the OP bank refused to accept that position and stated that there was no reply by the petitioner to their letter even though it was intimated to him that outstanding loan repayment amounting to Rs.61,602.80P had accumulated as on 10.6.1993. Later on, the OP bank wrote another letter on 7.9.1993 by which it refused to take further responsibility of collection of rent from the ONGC. In these circumstances, the petitioner alleged that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank for not collecting the rent from the ONGC and as such he was entitled to receive damage and compensation for which he filed a complaint before the District Forum.
AFTER hearing the parties and taking into consideration the evidence before it, the District Forum held that the complainant was not a consumer and the subject matter of his complaint did not come under the purview of the consumer forum. However, on merits also it dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 18.5.2006 in CP Case No.18 of 2004. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the petitioner carried the same before the State Commission by filing an appeal which came to be dismissed by the State Commission vide its impugned order.
WE have heard the petitioner Mr. B.N. Dutta, who appeared in person, and perused the record. None has appeared for the respondents.
THE State Commission while holding that the petitioner is a consumer, did not find any fault with the order of the District Forum in respect of deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank. The State Commission has recorded the following reasons in support of its impugned order:- "8. ONGC was not made a party in the complaint petition and therefore like the District Forum we have also not examined whether there are lapses on the part of ONGC for non sanctioning of the rent as per lease deeds in spite of receiving the bills from the complainant. Here we are concerned with the alleged lapses on the part of the opposite parties in giving services to the complainant. We failed to understand as to why the complainant had not made ONGC a party so as to get adequate relief from the Forum. In our examination of the matter and application of mind we have not seen any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Since the appellant/complainant had not supplied his signed bills to the bank, the opposite parties were not supposed to collect the rent from ONGC without such bills by visiting their office merely on the basis of the power of attorney. In the District Forum as well as in this Commission the appellant/complainant had failed to prove that he submitted the bills to the opposite parties or to ONGC. 9. The opposite parties in their written statement also denied that the statement of the loan account was not furnished to the complainant. They stated that whenever sought for it was furnished. The appellant/complainant had stated that when he visited the bank branch only then he got a copy of the statement. The activities of the bank are guided by certain rules and regulations. It cannot be expected that without furnishing house rent bills by the owner of the house a tenant like ONGC can make payment of house rent. In this matter since the bills were not submitted by the appellant/complainant the respondent/opposite parties had no opportunity to collect the house rent from ONGC in spite of the existence of an agreement between the parties and transfer of the power of attorney".
WE agree with the view taken by the State Commission. No material has been placed by the petitioner before us which would justify a different view. We have also not come across any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which would call for our interference with it. We, therefore, dismiss the revision petition with no order as to costs.