For the Petitioner : In Person For the Respondent : Mr. Neeraj Chaudhry, Advocate 14.03.2013 O R D E R Complainant/Petitioner took a loan of Rs.90,000/- from the Respondent Bank in the year 2004 under the Prime Minister’s Employment Scheme vide account No. TLC -23, out of which the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- was for purchase of computerized embroidery machine and Rs.40,000/- for stock. She deposited LIC policy of her husband with the Respondent as security against loan along with machine and stock to be purchased with the loan amount. The loan amount was to be repaid in equal installments of Rs.1950/- each per month for five years. Petitioner deposited 26 installments amounting to Rs.54,000/- with the Respondent. Since, she did not pay the EMIs after January, 2007, Respondent served a legal notice dated 16.08.07 calling upon the Petitioner to pay the debit balance of Rs.59,933.10 with interest failing which the Respondent would be constrained to initiate legal action against her for recovery of the loan amount. Vide letter dated 18.08.07, Petitioner replied that due to sealing drive in 2006, she had suffered huge loss in the business as a result of which all her machinery had turned into junk and stock had turned into waste. She offered to pay Rs.20,000/- as full and final settlement against the balance loan amount which offer was rejected by the Respondent. Thereafter, Respondent being assigner surrendered the LIC policy of Petitioner’s husband and asked the LIC to remit the surrendered value of the policy in its favour towards adjustment of the loan amount. Accordingly, LIC paid Rs.10,272/- to the Respondent which were adjusted against the loan amount. Respondent vide letter dated 5.10.07, informed the Petitioner that the LIC policy of her husband was surrendered to the LIC and the surrendered value of the Policy, i.e. Rs.10,272/- had been adjusted against her loan amount. She was called upon to pay the balance amount of Rs.43,552/- along with interest after the adjustment of the surrendered value of the policy. According to the Petitioner, her husband had deposited a total sum of Rs.58,000/- in the LIC policy out of which Rs.20,000/- had been received as money back under the policy and a sum of Rs.38,000/- was still due to her against the policy on which she was to get Rs.45,000/- as bonus after few months. Complainant/Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum. Respondent, on being served, put in appearance and filed its written statement resisting the complaint, inter-alia, on the grounds; that the Petitioner had defaulted in making payment of dues and therefore there was no damage or loss caused to the Petitioner; that even after recovering the amount against LIC policy of the husband of the Petitioner and adjusting the same towards loan amount, a sum of Rs.43,552/- with interest was still due from the Petitioner; that a legal notice dated 16.08.07 was served upon the Petitioner to pay the balance loan amount but the Petitioner did not pay the outstanding amount; that the Petitioner offered to pay Rs.20,000/- as full and final settlement of the balance loan amount which offer was rejected by the Respondent; that the policy was assigned in favour of the Respondent and it was surrendered by the Respondent for Rs.10,272/- which amount was adjusted against the loan amount; that there was no deficiency in service on their part. District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent Bank to refund the amount of Rs.38,000/- towards the value of the policy and to liquidate the dues of the Petitioner by sale of the machinery and stock and to resort to other methods only if they are not sufficient. Rs.10,000/- were awarded towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. District Forum observed as under:- “ As per the letter dated 25.11.2007 by the O.P., the policy was surrendered on 03.10.2007 i.e. about 5 years after the commencement of the policy thus the bank could have realize the due amount from the stock and machinery and if any balance remained only then the policy could be surrendered and that too after putting the complainant and her husband on notice which has not been done. The loan sanction letter of the O.P. dated 17.09.2004 shows that the complainant had taken a loan from the O.P. in the year 2004 under Prime Ministers Employment Scheme for Rs. 90000/- and out of which the loan amount of Rs. 50000/- for computerized embroidery machine and Rs. 40000/- for stock was sanctioned. It is also mentioned in that letter that 15% subsidy is available which will be maximum to Rs. 7500/-. Thus credit of sum of Rs. 7500/- was also to be given to the complainant by the bank, which has also not been given. Therefore, we find O.P. deficient on that account.” Respondent, being aggrieved, file the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission reversed the order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal by observing as under:- “ Admittedly the appellant had granted loan to the respondent who had not cleared the outstanding amount and committed default in payment of EMI agreed upon despite legal notice sent to her, as well as to her husband. It has been rightly held in impugned order that the Respondent cannot find fault with the appellant as the amount of Rs. 59,993/- was due and the appellant was not ready to suffer loss on account of that by adjusting it with Rs. Twenty Thousands. In the circumstances, recovery of outstanding dues by the appellant bank by surrendering the policy assigned to it was in accordance with the agreement between the parties and hence could not be held as deficiency or that appellant was deficient on that account. It may again be stated that the policy has been enchased after service of legal notice on her husband/policy holder as well. It is significant to note that he did not respond, nor has he come out with any complaint against the appellant bank. As regards the stock and machinery, it was the version of the respondent/debtor herself in letter dated 18.08.2007 that machinery had turned junk and stock had turned waste. In these circumstances her offer of providing the same to the bank vide letter dated 29.02.2008, is of no consequence/value, and this is apparently after-thought as it is subsequent to her complaint which is dated 03.02.2008. In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that findings of the Ld. District Forum that no notice was served before surrendering policy or that Rs. 38,000/- were payable under the policy or that the appellant was deficient are not as per record. Therefore, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint case is dismissed.” Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present revision Petition. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties at length. Petitioner appearing in person contents that the Respondent was not entitled to take any security/guarantee in the Prime Minister’s Employment Yozna loan as per the policy of the Government; that the Petitioner was forced to deposit the LIC policy as security; that the policy was never assigned to the Respondent to surrender; that a sum of Rs.38,000/- was due to the Petitioner against the policy but the policy was surrendered by the Respondent only for a sum of Rs.10,272/-; that as per PMRY scheme, the Respondent was entitled to recover the balance loan amount, in case of default, from sale of hypothecated machine and stocks and admittedly the Petitioner was ready to hand over the hypothecated machine and stock to the Respondent for recovery of the loan amount and if any amount still remains due, Respondent was to file recovery proceedings; that no notice was sent to the Petitioner before surrendering the LIC policy; that the Petitioner offered to pay Rs.20,000/- as full and final settlement of the balance amount but the said offer was rejected by the Respondent. As against this, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent supports the order passed by the State Commission. At the time of hearing of the Revision Petition on 14.08.12 before this Commission, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has pointed out that the Petitioner has filed two separates cases with regard to the same cause of action. Petitioner was directed to file the pleadings of the complaint pending before the District Forum, ISBT, New Delhi which have been produced on record. Since this point was not taken up in the written statement by the Respondent, we refrain from expressing any opinion as to the maintainability of the two complaints on the same cause of action. Admittedly, Petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.90,000/- from the Respondent Bank under the Prime Minister’s Employment Scheme, out of which the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- was for purchase of computerized embroidery machine and Rs.40,000/- for stock. She deposited LIC policy of her husband with the Respondent as security against loan along with machine and stock to be purchased with the loan amount. The loan was to be repaid in equal installments of Rs.1950/- p.m. for five years. After paying 26 installments amounting to Rs.54,000/-, Petitioner defaulted in making the payment of the further installments from 1.1.07 onward. A sum of Rs.59,933/- was due against the Petitioner as on 1.8.07. A legal notice was sent by the Respondent calling upon the Petitioner to pay the outstanding amount failing which it would be constrained to initiate legal action against the petitioner for recovery of the loan amount. Petitioner offered to deposit the goods purchased with the loan amount and Rs.20,000/- as full and final settlement against the balance amount of loan. Respondent rejected the offer made by the Petitioner as according to Petitioner’s own admission the machinery had turned junk and stock had turned waste due to sealing drive in 2006. Under the circumstances, Respondent was justified in surrendering the LIC policy of the Petitioner’s husband to recover the loan amount in exercise of its general lien in terms of settled principle of law envisaged u/s 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The LIC policy was pledged against the loan granted to the Petitioner and the Respondent was entitled to surrender the policy in the absence of any contract to the contrary in exercise of its general lien. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. For the reasons stated above, we do no find any merit in the Revision Petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. |
