STATE BANK OF INDIA vs Bhukan Saran

THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 21 -03 -2013 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner bank against the order of the District Forum dated 21 -03 -2012 was dismissed. The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that he had taken an agricultural loan of Rs.1,00,000/ - from the petitioner bank which the Central Government decided to waive, under its Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008. According to the complainant though he did apply for the waiver of the loan under the aforesaid scheme of the Government of India, his request was declined on the ground that he had not paid the requisite processing fee. The complainant had also claimed that out of total 5.3 acre of land owned by him he had constructed a house on land measuring 0.5 hectare, as a result he was left with agricultural land measuring 4.07 acres.

THE complaint was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that since at the time of taking the loan the complainant had mortgaged agricultural land measuring 2.145 hectare, he was not eligible for waiver of the loan. It was also stated in the reply that in fact he had constructed only one room on the aforesaid land for the purpose of overseeing the crop and the entire land was being used for agricultural purpose. It was also stated in the reply that the complainant had already taken relief to the extent of Rs.24,294/ - on 30 -06 -2009 and therefore the complaint was not maintainable.

THE District Forum noted that in the revenue record 1.25 dismal out of 5.3 dismal land was registered as residential and, therefore, the agricultural land owned by the complainant measured 4 acre and 7 dismal since 1994. That being less than 5 acre the complainant was held eligible for waiver under the 2008 scheme of the Government of India. The District Forum directed the petitioner to waive of the agriculture loan and refund the amount of RS.72,880/ - which the complainant had deposited along with interest on that amount. A sum of Rs.5,000/ - was awarded to him as compensation besides Rs.2,000/ - as cost of litigation. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 21 -03 -2013 the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The State Commission also noted that as per the revenue record available on the file, habitation was recorded in 3.5 acres of land and the complainant had only 2.145 hectare land thereby becoming eligible for waiver under the aforesaid scheme.

IT appears to us from the facts and circumstances discussed above that though the complainant owned land measuring land more than 5 acres, a part of it having already been utilized for constructing a house, the actual use for agricultural purposes was less than 5 acres of land but while taking loan, the aforesaid position was not disclosed by the complainant to the bank. It has come in the order of the District Forum that the bank did not take documents such as Khasra, Khatauni from the complainant at the time of disbursal of the loan. It was also noted in this regard that a spot inspection would have been carried out by the officers of the bank while sanctioning the loan. It felt that either no inspection carried by the bank officers or in case the inspection was carried out, it would have come to their notice that the land being actually put to agricultural use by the complainant was less than 5 acres. Be that as it may, the complainant had produced documents to show that the land being used by him for agricultural purposes was less than 5 acres and no evidence was produced by the petitioner bank to rebut the aforesaid case of the complainant.

COMING to the application seeking condonation of delay we find that the impugned order was received by the petitioner from the office of the State Commission on 25 -04 -2014 and it was forwarded to the Regional Manager on the next date. The Regional Manager directed that opinion of the counsel who had filed the appeal before the State Commission be sought. The counsel gave an opinion which was received on 10 -05 -2014. The said opinion was brought to the notice of the Regional Manager immediately after it was received from the counsel. The application shows that on 16 -07 -2014 and 22 -07 -2014, communications were sent by the Branch Manager to the Regional Manager, seeking further advice in the matter. It was only on 04 -12 -2014 that the Assistant General Manager advised the Regional Manager to file the revision petition and thereafter the file was sent by the Regional Manager to the Branch Manager for doing the needful.

A perusal of the letter dated 16 -07 -2014 written by the Branch Manager to the Regional Manager would show that the counsel who preferred appeal before the State Commission was of the opinion that the order of the State Commission should be respected and the bank should waive of the loan. It is, thus, evident that the decision to file revision petition was taken against legal advice and that too without taking another legal opinion.

THIS revision petition came to be filed on 13 -02 -2015 whereas the impugned order was received by the petitioner way back on 25 -04 -2014. Even the opinion from the counsel had been received on 10 -05 -2014. Computed from 25 -04 -2014 the prescribed period of limitation expired some time towards the end of July 2014. By that time not only the bank had with it the opinion of the counsel, at least two reminders had been sent by the Branch Manager to the Regional Manager, seeking advice in the matter. It is rather unfortunate that despite having the entire material including legal advice available with it the petitioner bank did not act promptly in the matter and took a decision to file revision petition only on 04 -12 -2014. The application is silent as to with which officer(s) the file remained lying between the last week of July 2014 and 04 -12 -2014 when the decision to file the revision was communicated by the Assistant General Manager to the Regional Manager. Since the period of limitation had expired in the last week of July 2014 the petitioner ought to have explained the delay of each and every day and should have told this Commission as to where the file was lying after last week of July 2014, for how much period it remained with a particular officer and what was the reason for the file remaining pending with him. That unfortunately has not been done. Even after a decision was taken on 04 -12 -2014 to file the revision petition, the bank did not act promptly and the revision petition came to be filed more than four months after the aforesaid decision was taken. There is hardly any explanation for the aforesaid delay between 04 -12 -2014 and 16 -04 -2015, when this petition came to be filed.

ONE of the objectives behind enactment of the Consumer Protection Act is to render expeditious relief to the consumer who is aggrieved on the ground of deficiency either in the product purchased or in the services hired or availed by him. The said objective is bound to be defeated if the revision petition filed against concurrent finding of fact recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission are entertained, after a delay of more than seven months without there being adequate explanation for the said delay. This will be more so in a case where the amount involved is rather a small amount.

IN the case before us the bank has already waived 25% of the loan amount and the balance amount would come to Rs.72,880/ -. Considering the facts and circumstances indicated hereinabove including (i) the failure of the petitioner bank to give an adequate and plausible explanation for the delay in filing the revision petition, (ii) the finding of the District Forum and the State Commission being a concurrent finding of fact and (iii) the amount involved being a rather small amount, we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. Consequently, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is dismissed. As a result the revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation. We make it clear that the amount deposited by the petitioner in compliance of the order of the State Commission shall be adjusted while making payment to the complainant in terms of orders passed by the Fora below.