Case nº Revision Petition No. 2639 of 2011, (Against the Order dated 07/03/2011 in Appeal No. 4726/2010 of the State Commission Karnataka) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, May 03, 2016 (case 1. Branch Manager, State Bank Of India & Anr. 2. The Deputy General Manager, State Bank Of India Vs 1. Siddamma & Anr. 2. The District Manager)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Advocate and For Respondents: NEMO and Ex-parte |
| President | Mr. Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member and Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member |
| Resolution Date | May 03, 2016 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
-
By this order we propose to dispose of above-noted revision petitions preferred against the common order of the State Commission dated 7th March, 2011 in execution appeal Nos.4726/2010 & 4727/2010.
-
Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the respondents Siddamma & Santha Bai filed separate consumer complaints against the petitioner bank alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner bank in relation to release of loan applied by them under "Chaitanya Safe Loan-cum-Subsidy Scheme" of the Government. The consumer complaints were contested by the petitioner bank.
-
The District Forum, Gulbarga vide order dated 9.4.2009 allowed both the complaints and directed the petitioner/opposite party to release the loan amount to the respective complainants. Besides Rs.1,000/- each was awarded to the complainants/respondents as compensation for mental agony as also the cost of litigation.
-
The petitioner/opposite party preferred appeals against the aforesaid order. The State Commission, Karnataka dismissed both the appeals and confirmed the order of the District Forum. The revision petitions filed against the concurrent order of the Fora below were dismissed by the National Commission vide order dated 27.8.2010.
-
The respondents/complainants/decree holders filed separate execution petitions against the petitioner on the plea that despite of the order of the District Forum having attained finality the petitioner bank has failed to comply with the order by releasing the loan amount to the respective decree holders. The execution petition was contested by the petitioner bank on the plea that the bank is ready and willing to comply with the directions of the consumer Fora and the order could not be complied with because of the failure of the respondents/decree holders to comply with the requisite formalities of granting of loan by furnishing the requisite documents for securing the repayment of loan.
-
The concerned District Forum with whom the execution petitions were filed rejected the plea of the petitioner/judgment debtor on the ground that executing Court had no jurisdiction to go behind the order under execution which has become final. The executing Court thus granted time upto 28th October, 2010 to the petitioner bank to release the loan amounts to the respective respondents/decree holders. The appeals preferred against the order of the executing District Forum were dismissed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial