NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI
 

REVISION PETITION NO. 1859 OF 2018

 
(Against the Order dated 16/03/2018 in Appeal No. 271/2015 of the State Commission
Maharashtra)
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA
THANE MAIN BRANCH, AGYARI LANE, MAZADA
COMPLEX, TEMBHI NAKA
THANE WEST
MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus  
1. RAJENDRA SADASHIV PARDESI
A-403, VIGNAHARTA COOPRATIVE HSG.
SOCIETY, YASHODHAN NAGAR, LOKMANAYA
NAGAR,
THANE WEST
MAHARAHSTRA ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
  HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Advocate

For the Respondent :

Dated : 27 Jul 2018

ORDER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner State Bank of India against the order dated
16.03.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short ‘the
State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.FA/15/271.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondent had taken a loan amount of Rs.5,61,000/-
from the opposite party/petitioner bank.  The loan was disbursed on 23.07.2007.  Later on when
the complainant contacted the developer agency, the complainant was informed that the banker
cheque was not received by the agency. Therefore, the complainant reissued the banker cheque
and the same was issued in the month of April, 2009.  The bank started charging interest from
the date of original disbursement i.e. 23.07.2007.  The complainant filed a complaint bearing
No.200/2010 before the Consumer Complaint Dispute Redressal Forum, Thane, (in short ‘the
District Forum’).  The District Forum vide its order dated 13.01.2015 passed the following
order:-
 “ORDER

1. The complaint No.200/2010 is partly allowed.

2. The opposite party is declared to be deficient in recovery of principal loan and interest
on the loan amount not disbursed.
3. The opposite party, within 40 days from the date of this order shall refund the amount of
principal sum of loan and interest collected by them during 01/09/2007 to 31.03.2009
and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, cost of complaint. etc.
4. If the opposite party fails to comply with the order mentioned in clause 3 above within
40 days the opposite party shall pay 6% interest on the total amount mentioned in
clause 3 above, till realization.
5. Both the parties shall file their respective affidavits of compliance/non compliance of
this order, 23/2/2015.
6. The copies of this order shall be sent free of cost to both the parties, immediately.”

3.      Aggrieved with the order dated 13.01.2015 of the District Forum, the opposite
party/petitioner herein preferred an appeal bearing No.FA/15/271 before the State
Commission.   The State Commission vide its order dated 16.03.2018 partly allowed the appeal
and found bank to be liable only to refund the interest charged on the loan amount of
Rs.5,61,000/- from 01.09.2007 to 31.03.2009.  Aggrieved by this order, the opposite
party/petitioner bank has filed the present revision petition. 

4.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage and perused the record.

5.      Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that though incidence of the operation of the
State Commission’s order may not be significant in terms of monetary value, however, this will
establish a wrong precedent and therefore, the revision petition has been filed. It was argued by
the learned counsel that the disbursement of loan was made on 23.07.2007 and it only means
that the amount had gone out of the fund of the petitioner bank and therefore, the petitioner
bank was entitled to charge interest from that date.  The learned counsel stated that as per the
Webster’s Dictionary, the term “disbursement” means payment that fulfils a contractual or
business arrangement.  Thus as per the loan agreement, the interest is chargeable from the date
of disbursement. The petitioner bank, though, has again issued the banker cheque in April,
2009, however that does not change the date of disbursement of the loan.  The State
Commission has wrongly taken the date of April 2009 to be the date of disbursement.  Thus, the
order of the State Commission is erroneous and against the basic principles of loan
disbursement and needs to be rectified by this Commission.

6.      I have carefully considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have
examined the record.  The fact that the petitioner bank has again issued the banker cheque in
April, 2009, clearly shows that actual amount was not debited from the funds of the petitioner
bank in 2007 because the banker cheque was not actually encashed in 2007.  Obviously, no
bank will pay the amount twice.  Thus, if the actual disbursement of amount of loan has taken
place in April, 2009 and the fund of loan amount remained with the bank even though banker
cheque was issued in 2007 (but, not encashed), there should be no question of bank charging
interest from 2007 to April, 2009.  Accordingly, in my view, the order dated 16.03.2018 of the
State Commission does not suffer from any infirmity and is not against the accepted principles
of financial propriety.

7.      Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or
jurisdictional error in the order dated 16.03.2018 of the State Commission, which calls for any
interference from this Commission.  Accordingly, RP No.1859 of 2018 is dismissed at the
admission stage.          
 
......................
PREM NARAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER