Case nº Revision Petition No. 3891 of 2012 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, January 06, 2015 (case 1. Bank of Baroda & Anr., 2. Bank of Baroda Anchal Office Vs Rubia International Export Industries)
| Judge | For Appellant: Ms. Swati Guildigal, Advocate |
| President | Mr. K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member |
| Resolution Date | January 06, 2015 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 10.7.2012 passed by State Commission in Appeal No. 1346 of 2011- Bank of Baroda & Others VS. Rubia International Export Industries; by which while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant-respondent after mortgaging original documents of his property, obtained loan from opposite party-petitioner. As loan was not repaid in prescribed time, opposite party file suit for recovery which was decreed and ultimately after compromise complainant paid sum of Rs. 9,75,000/- to opposite party but opposite party did not return original documents of the property in spite of repeated letters. Opposite party by letter dated 15.6.2005 informed complainant that original papers of the property have lost. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint but admitted all facts and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed opposite party to pay Rs. 1.00 lakh as damages, Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 1,500/- as cost of the suit. It was further directed that if complainant wants loan from opposite party, that will not be rejected on the plea that he does not have original documents of the property. Opposite party was further directed to execute Indemnity Bond in favour of the complainant for mis-use of the documents. Both the parties filed appeal before State Commission and Learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed both the appeal against which petitioner has filed this revision petition.
Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent in person and perused record.
Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that impugned order is not a speaking order, hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. Respondent also agreed that impugned order is not a speaking order.
Perusal of impugned order reveals that this order neither contains facts of the case nor grounds taken in Memo of Appeal and at the same time has not dealt with any grounds taken in Memo of Appeal. Order passed by Learned State Commission runs as under:-
The facts and evidences were well scrutinized and perused by the District Tribunal and order passed thereof. Therefore we do not find any logic to...
To continue reading
Request your trial