Kalawati Devi vs Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank

-BEING aggrieved by the order dated 10. 5. 2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar dismissing appeal/complaint, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant had applied for loan of Rs. 1,98,000 which was sanctioned. On 15. 1. 1998 the complainant paid the margin money. She was supplied tractor but the sale letter was given by the selling agency to the Branch Manager as per prevalent practice. Complainant vide letter dated 27. 12. 1997 informed the respondent about the delivery of the tractor and price was paid to the selling agency. It was claimed that the opposite party did not give the papers relating to tractor till 18. 3. 2002. The tractor remained idle. The complainant suffered losses. The respondent issued certificate of recovery of the amount. The matter was contested by the respondent and it was submitted that a sum of Rs. 2,38,543 became due on complainant who had taken the loan jointly with her husband. Besides, it was the duty of the complainant to get the tractor registered. The complainant demanded rendition of account which would fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The husband of the complainant agreed to pay the loan in six monthly instalments of Rs. 11,000 each plus interest but defaulted in making payment.

The District Forum dismissed the complaint with cost of Rs. 2,000. Review application was also dismissed on 21. 12. 2004.

THOUGH the petitioner had challenged the order dated 13. 1. 2004 but the appeal was filed on 25. 1. 2005. There was no dispute that the copy of the order of the District Forum was received on 23. 1. 2004. The State Commission took the view that the appeal was hopelessly barred by time. It is also noticed that due to non-payment of instalments of loan, the amount which was payable by the complainant/petitioner, was Rs. 2,28,534 as complainant had deposited about Rs. 65,000 only between March, 1998 and 31. 7. 2002. The State Commission has rightly not accepted the submission that for want of papers the tractor was not registered. The State Commission held that this plea was imaginary and could not be accepted. The papers were supplied as and when they were demanded. Supposing for the sake of argument, for want of aforesaid papers the tractor could not be registered, then it could not be plied. In such circumstances it was not expected from the complainant and her husband that they would remain silent after 15. 1. 1998 for years together. It may be mentioned that the complaint was filed before the District Forum, Buxar in 2002. If we see from that point of view the complaint itself was barred by time and in view of the concurrent finding given by the District Forum and the State Commission, we find it difficult to accept the submission of the learned Counsel. There is no reason to take any view different from the view taken by the Fora below. The revision petition is dismissed. R. P. dismissed.