State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Canara Hsbc Oriental Bank Of Commerce ... vs Parveen Kumari Bhatti on 28 June, 2024
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
1) First Appeal No.362 of 2023
Date of institution : 10.05.2023
Reserved On : 21.05.2024
Date of decision : 28.06.2024
Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Company
Limited, having office at 4th Floor, SCO 128, Nagpal Tower-1, District
Shopping Centre, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, through its Authorized
Signatory Arindam Mishra, Senior Manager (Legal) available at
Canara HSBC Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Orchid Business
Park, Sector-48, Sohana Road, Gurgaon-122018.
....Appellant/OP No.2
Versus
1. Parveen Kumari Bhatti aged about 58 years wife of late Sh. Tilak
Raj Bhatti, resident of 629/13, Khu Kundian Wala, Sandhu
Colony, Batala Road, Amritsar.
....Respondent/Complainant
2. Punjab National Bank, VPO Mahal, Amritsar, through its Branch
Manager.
....Respondent/OP No.1
2) First Appeal No.202 of 2023
Date of institution : 16.03.2023
Reserved On : 21.05.2024
Date of decision : 28.06.2024
Punjab National Bank, a Body Corporate constituted under the
Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970,
having its Head Office at Plot No.4, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi and
First Appeal No.362 of 2023 2
having its Branches at different places including one at VPO Mahal
(eOBC Branch) Amritsar, District Amritsar (Pb.), through its
Constituted Attorney/Branch Head.
....Appellant/OP No.1
Versus
1. Parveen Kumari Bhatti aged about 58 years wife of late Sh. Tilak
Raj Bhatti, resident of 629/13, Khu Kundian Wala, Sandhu
Colony, Batala Road, Amritsar.
....Respondent/Complainant
2. Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce, Life Insurance
Company Limited, having office at 4th Floor, SCO 128, Nagpal
Tower-1, District Shopping Centre, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar,
through its Branch Manager/Overall Incharge.
....Respondent/OP No.2
First Appeals under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Amritsar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present (FA No.362 of 2023):-
For the Appellant : Sh. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Sh. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate
For Respondent No.2 : Sh. Hemant Hans, Advocate.
First Appeal No.362 of 2023 3
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT
This order of ours shall dispose off two First Appeals i.e. First Appeal No.362 of 2023 and First Appeal No.202 of 2023, as similar questions of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts are being extracted from First Appeal No.362 of 2023. First Appeal No.362 of 2023
2. Appellant/OP No.2 has filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 being aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the Complaint filed by Respondent No.1/Complainant had been allowed.
3. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.
4. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondent No.1/Complainant in the Complaint filed by her before the District Commission are that her husband namely Sh. Tialk Raj Bhatti (since deceased) had availed Home Loan of ₹5.22 lac vide Loan Account No.19436012000049 for construction of house from Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC), VPO Mahal, District Amritsar on 02.01.2018. The Complainant had submitted the Sale Deed of the house bearing No.629/13 as security document to the Bank in original. First Appeal No.362 of 2023 4 At that time, the Branch Manager of the Bank had offered the insurance policy to secure the loan amount to the husband of the Complainant as well as the Complainant, as the same was useful in case there was any loss to the life of the insured borrower during the loan tenure. On the assurance given by the Branch Manager, the husband of the Complainant had agreed for the same and had availed the Insurance Policy to secure the loan amount. An amount of ₹21,620/- was debited from the SB Account of the husband of the Complainant bearing No.19432413000459 on 25.01.2018 and the Insurance Policy No.GP000147-0174600 was issued to the husband of the Complainant by OP No.2. Further, the Oriental Bank of Commerce was merged into OP No.1 i.e. Punjab National Bank. The Insurance Policy was issued by OP No.2 and there was tie-up also between OPs No.1 & 2. It was further mentioned that the husband of the Complainant had expired on 12.06.2021 and the Death Certificate of the deceased was also supplied. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the remaining loan amount of ₹4,35,000/- was required to be waived off/adjusted out of the claim amount after the death of her husband. The Complainant had requested the OPs to waive off the balance loan amount from the insurance claim but no attention was paid to her request. Thereafter, the Complainant had served a legal notice upon the OPs, which was duly received but there was no effect. The act of the OPs was stated to be a case of 'deficiency in service' First Appeal No.362 of 2023 5 and 'unfair trade practice', due to which the Complainant had suffered mental agony and harassment as well as the financial loss. The Complaint was filed with the following prayer:
a) OP be directed to adjust the remaining loan amount from the said insurance policy;
b) To pay compensation to the tune of ₹50,000/- to the
Complainant; and
c) To pay adequate litigation expenses.
d) Any other relief to which the Complainant is entitled be also
awarded.
5. Upon issuance of notice, OP No.1 had appeared through Counsel and filed written version, wherein it was mentioned that it was only a mediator between the Complainant and the Insurance Company and nothing was to be done by it. Further, it was mentioned that the Housing Loan Account of the Complainant and her husband had turned into NPA due to non-payment of the loan account and this fact was intentionally concealed by the Complainant while filing the Complaint. Other allegations as made in the Complaint were denied and it was prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.
6. OP No.2 had filed separate written version, wherein it was mentioned that in order to secure the home loan, the husband of the Complainant had submitted a filled-up and signed Proposal Form dated 26.01.2018 along with the premium amount of ₹21,620/-.
However, while evaluating the Proposal Form, it was found that the proposer was a retired person and as such OP No.2 had declined to First Appeal No.362 of 2023 6 issue the policy. Since no insurance policy was issued in favour of the proposer, the Complainant was not entitled to claim any relief.
7. By considering the contents of the Complaint and reply thereof filed by the OPs, the Complaint was allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 19.01.2023. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:
"The loan was sanctioned to the husband of the Complainant on 2.1.2018 and policy to secure the loan was issued in his favour on 26.1.2018. Husband of the Complainant died on 12.6.2021 and in this way outstanding loan amount on dated 12.6.2021 is liable to be adjusted. As the opposite party No.2 is merged with opposite party No.1, as such opposite party No.1 is directed to adjust the whole outstanding loan amount since 12.6.2021 and refund the amount, if any paid by the LRs of the deceased after the death of the loanee i.e. husband of the Complainant alongwith interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of payment till its realization. Both the opposite parties are also directed to pay compensation & litigation expenses of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the Complainant. Compliance of the order be made by opposite party No.2 within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and sanction the amount to opposite party No.1 and thereafter opposite party No.1 is directed to adjust the amount and refund the excessive amount to the Complainant. Compensation shall be paid by both the opposite parties jointly or severally; failing which the Opposite parties shall be liable to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this commission."
8. Said order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the District Commission has been challenged by both the OPs by way of filing First Appeal No.362 of 2023 and First Appeal No.202 of 2023 by raising a number of arguments.
9. There was a delay of 56 days in filing of First Appeal No.362 of 2023. Misc. Application No.710 of 2023 was filed for condonation of delay, which was supported by an affidavit. Said First Appeal No.362 of 2023 7 application was allowed vide order dated 02.06.2023 and the delay in filing of the Appeal was condoned.
10. Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, learned Counsel for the Appellant/OP No.2 has submitted that the District Commission has lost sight of the fact that there was no contract of insurance with the deceased, as the policy was never issued. The proposer Mr. Tilak Raj Bhatti had submitted a filled-up and signed Proposal Form dated 26.01.2018 with premium of ₹21,620/-. In the Payment Deposit Acknowledgement letter dated 26.01.2018, it was clearly mentioned that "We wish to confirm receipt of ₹21620/- for your application vide receipt No. 16370127. The application is under process and you would receive formal communication on this shortly." However, on evaluation of the Proposal Form submitted by the proposer, it was found that the proposer was a retired person and as such OP No.2 had declined to issue the policy. Learned Counsel has further submitted that mere issuance of Deposit Acknowledgement Receipt does not constitute a case of contract with the Insurance Company. Moreover, the Proposal Form was submitted on 26.01.2018 and the proposer had died on 12.06.2021 i.e. after a period of more than 3 years. However, during this period, the proposer had never approached OP No.1 or the Appellant/OP No.2 for non-issuance of the policy. Moreover, no policy was ever issued in favour of the proposer and as such there was no contract between the Insurance Company and the deceased. The First Appeal No.362 of 2023 8 District Commission had not considered these material facts and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. There was no 'deficiency in service' on the part of the Appellant and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel has also relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:
i) Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Vs Mis Garg Sons International" 2013 (1) СРС 192 (SC);
ii) M/s. Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2011 AIR Supreme Court 903 (Civil);
iii) LIC v. Raja Vasireddy Komalivali Kamba & Ors. 1984 AIR 1014 SC;
iv) ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited v. Amit Vijay Salvi & Another 2020(1) CPR 160 (NC);
v) Anita Devi v. LIC 2018(2) CLT 68 (NC);
vi) SBI Life v. D.Srinivas 2017(1) CPJ 649 (NC);
vii) LIC of India & Ors. v. Mahendra Singh 2011 (4) CLT 39 (NC);
viii) Vikram Greentech (1) Ltd & Anr. v. New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. 2009(4) CLT 313;
ix) LIC v. Gita Sharma 2010(2) CPJ 231 (NC);
x) Deokar Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
2009 (2) CLT 15.
11. Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, learned Counsel for
Respondent No.1/Complainant has submitted that the order passed by the District Commission is well reasoned and the same has been passed by considering the version/evidence so produced by the parties and no interference is required. Learned Counsel has relied First Appeal No.362 of 2023 9 upon the case of Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. v. Girijabai & Ors. 2020 (3) CPR 347 (NC) in support of his contentions.
12. Mr. Hemant Hans, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2/OP No.1-Bank (Appellant in FA No.202 of 2023) has submitted that OP No.1 had only deducted the premium as per the instructions of the husband of the Complainant and no liability can be imposed upon the Bank. Learned Counsel has further submitted that Oriental Bank of Commerce was merged with OP No.1-PNB, who had been directed to adjust the whole outstanding loan amount since 12.06.2021 and to refund the amount, if any, paid by the LRs of the deceased after his death along with the interest. However, the situation is different, as OP No.1 was an independent Company and in case any interest was payable, it should have been paid by the Insurance Company and not by the Bank. Accordingly, the impugned is liable to be set aside against OP No.1. Learned Counsel has also relied upon the judgment of case of D. Sirinivas v. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No.2216 of 2018 decided on 16.02.2018 (SC) in support of his contentions.
13. We have heard the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the parties. We have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission and all other documents available on the file.
First Appeal No.362 of 2023 10
14. Facts regarding filing of the Complaint by the Complainant before the District Commission, reply thereto filed by the OPs, allowing of said Complaint and thereafter filing of both the Appeals by the OPs before this Commission are not in dispute.
15. Admittedly, Mr. Tialk Raj Bhatti (since deceased), the husband of the Complainant had availed Home Loan of ₹5.22 lac from Oriental Bank of Commerce vide Loan Account No.19436012000049 for construction of house on 02.01.2018. As per the version of the Complainant, her husband had purchased the insurance policy from OP No.2-Insurance Company for securing the loan amount in case of any mishappening. An amount of ₹21,620/- was debited from his SB Account on 25.01.2018 and thereafter the Insurance Policy No.GP000147-0174600 was issued. The Oriental Bank of Commerce was merged into OP No.1 i.e. Punjab National Bank. The husband of the Complainant had expired on 12.06.2021 and the Death Certificate was supplied and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the remaining loan amount of ₹4,35,000/- was required to be waived off/adjusted from the claim amount after the death of her husband.
16. The stand of OP No.2-Insurance Company was that the husband of the Complainant had submitted a filled-up and signed Proposal Form dated 26.01.2018 along with the premium amount of ₹21620/-. The relevant portion of the Payment Deposit Acknowledgement letter dated 26.11.2018 is reproduced as under: First Appeal No.362 of 2023 11
"We wish to confirm receipt of ₹21620/- for your Application vide receipt No. 16370127. The application is under process and you would receive formal communication on this shortly."
However, while evaluating the Proposal Form, it was found that the proposer was a retired person and as such no policy was issued.
17. It is relevant to mention that the Complainant had disclosed the number of the insurance policy in the Complaint but the Insurance Company has submitted that no such policy was issued. Both the parties i.e. the Complainant and the Insurance Company have not produced on record any Insurance Policy. However, the alleged ground of non-issuance of the Insurance Policy was disclosed by the Insurance Company for the first time in the written version filed by it before the District Commission. In case, the policy was not issued to the deceased husband of the Complainant, OP No.2-Insurance Company should have informed the deceased or the Complainant but it was not done for the reasons best known to the Insurance Company. Even no such document was produced on record to prove that any intimation with reasons regarding non-issuance of the insurance policy was given. The stand of the Insurance Company is that the amount of premium was kept in the Suspense Account but no Statement of Account was produced to prove that the premium amount was lying in the Suspense Account of the Insurance Company from the date of its receipt till date. Premium amount of ₹21,620/- was deducted from the account of the husband of the Complainant on 25.01.2018, which was acknowledged by the Insurance Company vide 'Deposit First Appeal No.362 of 2023 12 Acknowledgment' dated 26.01.2018 (Ex.OP-1), wherein it was mentioned that the Application/Proposal Form submitted by the husband of the Complainant was under process and the formal intimation was to be given shortly. However, no such intimation was given to him that the policy was not issued on the ground that he was a retired person. Even the premium amount was not refunded to the Complainant. Therefore, in the absence of any intimation to the Complainant or her husband, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved from its responsibility to get the balance loan amount waived off from OP No.1-Bank, who had advanced the loan to the husband of the Complainant.
18. It is relevant to mention that OP No.1-Bank had deducted the premium amount from the account of the husband of the Complainant and had sent the same to the OP No.2-Insurance Company. After the deduction of the premium, which was duly acknowledged and received by the Insurance Company, no role was left to be played on behalf of the Bank. Thereafter, it was for the Insurance Company to issue the policy but the Insurance Company had failed to intimate the Complainant or her husband about the non- issuance of the policy in time. Therefore, no liability could be fastened upon OP No.1-Bank, as OP No.2-Insurance Company was deficient in not informing the Complainant about the non-issuance of the policy. However, after the adjustment of the balance loan amount out of the First Appeal No.362 of 2023 13 insurance claim, OP No.1-Bank is required to refund the amount, if any, paid by the LRs of the deceased after his death towards the instalments of the loan.
19. Similar issue arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D. Sirinivas (supra). The relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced as under:
"15. It is an admitted fact that the premium was paid on 29.09.2008. That it was only in 18.01.2011 that the Respondent insurance company informed the Appellant that the policy was not accepted by them. We are unable to fathom the reason for such excessive delay in informing the Appellant, which cannot be excused. We are of the opinion that the rejection of the policy must be made in a reasonable time so as to be fair and in consonance with the good faith standards. In this case, we cannot hold that such enormous delay was reasonable. Moreover, it is borne from the records that the premium was only re-paid on 24.02.2011, after a delay of more than one year five months. If we consider above aspects, it can be reasonably concluded that the insurer is only trying to get out of the bargain, which they had willfully accepted. From the aforesaid circumstances we can easily conclude that the policy was accepted by the insurer.
16. In the circumstances, there is no reason to believe that there was no complete contract. There is clear presumption of the acceptance of the proposal in favour of the proposer. Therefore, the majority view of the Commission would not sustain.
20. Further, the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Girijabai & Ors. (Supra) has held that as per the IRDA Regulations, the decision on the Proposal Form was required to be made by the Insurance Company within a period of 15 days. The relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced as under:
"12. It may be added that it is not disputed that [a] the proposal was made on 05.05.2009; [b] the premium was paid on 05.05.2009; [c] the insured Radheyshyam Mourya expired in a road accident on 27.05.2009; [d] no infirmity in the proposal form was noticed and no First Appeal No.362 of 2023 14 shortfall in the premium amount was found by the Insurance Co. (else it would not have issued the Policy); [e] the Insurance Co. accepted the premium on 05.05.2009; and [f] the time-frame prescribed in IRDAI guidelines for taking the decision and issuing the Policy was not adhered to by the Insurance Co.
The commencement of coverage of risk cannot be an arbitrary and irrational function of the level of efficiency or inefficiency of the functionaries of the Insurance Co.
In other words, it cannot be that had the functionaries of the Insurance Co. been efficient enough and issued the Policy on any day from 05.05.2009 to 27.05.2009, before the insured Radheyshyam Mourya expired, the risk would have been covered and the sum insured would have been paid, but, if the functionaries of the Insurance Co. were not efficient enough and issued the Policy subsequent to 27.05.2009, after the insured Radheyshyam Mourya expired, the risk would not be covered and the sum insured would not be paid.
Hypothetically, in the case of any other similarly situate person, who expires, say, about 20-25 days after furnishing the proposal form and after paying the premium, but in whose case the functionaries of the Insurance Co. issue the policy before his having expired, the claim would be honoured, but, in the present case, since the functionaries of the Insurance Co. did not issue the Policy before the insured expired, the claim would not be honoured.
The nominees/legal heirs of the insured, in present facts and specificities, that is, of an insured, who, after furnishing the proposal form (which passed scrutiny of the Insurance Co.), and after paying the premium (which was accepted by the Insurance Co.), expired unexpectedly in a road accident before the Policy was issued, cannot be made dependent on the level of efficiency or inefficiency of the functionaries of the Insurance Co.
The Insurance Co. has argued that coverage of risk commences when the Policy is issued. The case here, but, is that the coverage of First Appeal No.362 of 2023 15 risk cannot be an arbitrary and irrational function of the level of efficiency or inefficiency of the functionaries of the Insurance Co., it cannot be overlooked that there was no infirmity in the proposal form and there was no shortfall in the premium and the premium was accepted by the Insurance Co.
Rather than applying its mind to the facts and specificities of the case, the Insurance Co. mechanically furnished a defence that the Policy had not been issued till the date the insured expired in a road accident and as such the coverage of the risk had not commenced. Delay beyond the time-frame of 15 days prescribed in IRDAI guidelines has not been satisfactorily explained. There is nothing on record to show that any internal inquiry was conducted to fix/imbibe accountability and responsibility or any efforts made to inculcate systemic improvements for future. That there was no infirmity in the proposal form and there was no shortfall in the premium and the premium had been accepted by the Insurance Co. have been treated to be inconsequential. Arbitrary irrational non- application of mind is well evident on the part of the Insurance Co.
13. The Act is for "better protection of the interests of consumers", in recognizedly a fight amongst unequals. Its Statement of Objects and Reasons says of "speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes".
In the instant case, the proposal was made and the premium paid in 2009. The insured expired in a road accident in 2009. Paying the sum insured to the nominees/legal heirs of the deceased insured is still pending, in 2020. One primary objective of taking insurance, that is, immediate (repeat immediate) pecuniary relief to the nominees / legal heirs of the insured, has already been defeated.
21. In view of the reasons and the facts and circumstances as well as the ratio of the law as laid down in the above noted authorities, First Appeal No.362 of 2023 16 it is apparent that OP No.2-Insurance Company had received the premium amount from the husband of the Complainant but neither it had intimated him about the non-issuance of the policy nor disclosed the alleged reason that the policy was not issued to the deceased- insured that he was a retired person. Even the premium amount was not refunded to the complainant in case the policy was not issued. Therefore, there was 'deficiency in service' on the part of the Insurance Company and as such it was required to get the balance loan amount waived off from the insurance claim on account of death of the husband of the Complainant. There was no 'deficiency in service' on the part of OP No.1-Bank, as it had already deducted the premium amount from the account of the husband of the Complainant and had sent the same to the Insurance Company in time, which was duly acknowledged by the Insurance Company. However, in case any amount was received by the Bank after the death of the deceased towards the loan instalment, the same is required to be refunded by the Bank. By accepting the amount of premium and thereafter by not intimating the Complainant about the decision of the Proposal Form, it can be safely inferred that the Insurance Policy was issued to secure the loan amount taken by the husband of the Complainant. The District Commission had had not taken into consideration all these facts and circumstances and had wrongly fastened the liability upon the Bank. After the death of the deceased, the liability to pay/adjust the loan First Appeal No.362 of 2023 17 amount was of the Insurance Company only. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Commission is liable to be modified. The judgments relied upon by learned Counsel for the OP No.2 (Appellant in First Appeal No.362 of 2023) are distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
22. It is also relevant to mention that in the prayer clause, the complainant had prayed that the Complaint be accepted with costs and the OPs be directed to adjust the balance loan amount out of the insured amount under the insurance policy and also to pay compensation of ₹50,000/-. It was also prayed that any other relief as may be deemed fit in view of the facts and circumstances be also awarded. However, the District Commission had awarded a composite amount of ₹1,50,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses. Meaning thereby, the District Commission had awarded the relief more than the amount claimed and that too without explaining as to why and how the compensation was awarded more than as claimed in the Complaint. On this account also, the impugned order is liable to be modified.
23. Accordingly, finding no force in the contentions raised by learned Counsel for Appellant(s)/OPs No.1 & 2, the First Appeal No.362 of 2023 as well as First Appeal No.202 of 2023 are partly allowed. The impugned order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the District Commission is modified to the extent that OP No.2- First Appeal No.362 of 2023 18 Insurance Company is directed to get the balance loan amount waived from OP No.1-Bank out of the insurance claim, as on the date of the death of the husband of the Complainant along with interest/penalty etc., if any, levied by the Bank. However, after the adjustment of the balance loan amount out of the insurance claim, OP No.1-Bank shall immediately refund the amount, if any, paid by the LRs of the deceased after his death towards the instalments of the loan. OP No.2-Insurance Company is also directed to pay an amount of ₹35,000/- towards compensation and ₹20,000/- litigation expenses for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant and forcing the litigation upon her. The compliance of the order shall be made within a period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of the order.
24. Since the main cases have been disposed off, so all the pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed off.
25. In First Appeal No.362 of 2023, the Appellant had deposited a sum of ₹3,73,047/- at the time of filing of the Appeal. Said amount along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. The District Commission may pass appropriate order for utilization of said amount towards adjustment of the loan amount in view of the observations made by this Commission.
First Appeal No.362 of 2023 19
26. In First Appeal No.202 of 2023, the Appellant had deposited a sum of ₹37,500/- at the time of filing of the Appeal. Further, an amount of ₹37,500/- was also deposited in compliance of order dated 21.03.2023. Said amounts along with the interest which had accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission. The District Commission may pass appropriate order in view of the observations made by this Commission.
27. The Appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER June 28, 2024.
(Gurmeet S)