PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1393/2010 –  India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Jagdish Prasad & Ors. by which, appeal was dismissed.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent No. 1 obtained loan of Rs. One lakh from the OP No. 4/Respondent No. 3.  OP-1/Petitioner started deducting monthly installments of Rs. 2929/- from the salary of complainant for repayment of his loan to OP No. 4. In the month of January 2004 the complainant applied for voluntary retirement, which was accepted by the OP No. 1 vide its letter dated 18.1.2004 whereby the complainant had been relieved from the service of OP No. 1 on 31.1.2005. An ex-gratia amount of Rs.3,88,765/- was granted to the complainant, who was advised to approach the accounts department for clearing the dues as well as for receiving payment of balance amount. The outstanding amount of personal loan as on date had been deducted from the amount given to the complainant by the accounts department for depositing the same with OP No. 4 immediately. On 1.1.2008, the complainant entered into an agreement with Sh. Lakhan, so the complainant applied for loan facility from OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2 through its representative OP No. 3 on 15.1.2008 by completing the requisite formalities. It was further alleged that on 18.1.2008 the complainant received a massage that his application for personal loan had been approved and he was advised to contact the sale executive for terms of approval.  Thereafter, OP No. 3 took postdated cheques from the complainant in favour of ICICI Bank.  On 27.1.2008 the complainant was informed by OP No. 3 that the disbursement of loan had been stopped on account of entry of the name of complainant in the record of CIBIL in respect of some defaulting amount of any previous loan account.   On enquiry it was revealed by OP No. 4 that an amount of Rs.11,414.21 was due against the complainant and so the name of the complainant name was sent to the CIBIL.  It was also revealed that OP No. 1 deposited an amount of Rs.2920/- on 5.2.2005, Rs.3414/- on 31.5.2005 and Rs.22,000/- on 31.10.2005 in his loan account. After cancellation of disbursement of loan amount, the complainant requested OP No. 3 to return the cheques issued by him in favour of ICICI Bank but the OP No.3 refused to return the said cheques. Thus loan applied by the complainant to OP No. 2 did not mature. It was further alleged that it was because of the default of OP No. 1 in not making the repayment of his loan amount to OP No. 4 that his name figured in the record of CIBIL resulting into refusal by OP No. 2 to disburse him the loan amount and thereby forfeiture of the earnest money paid by him to Lakhan under an agreement to sell.  Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that OP paid all legal dues and paid Rs.22,000/- in October, 2005 to Citi Bank Personal Loan Account of complainant and issued certificate on 14.2.2008; so, not liable for any consequences.  It was further pleaded that complainant does not fall within purview of consumer, as OP was employer of complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 resisted complaint and submitted that personal loan applied by complainant was rejected as name of the complainant figured in defaulters record maintained by CIBIL and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 4 resisted complaint and admitted receipt of Rs.22,000/- in complainant’s loan account, but alleged that amount deposited was not sufficient to close loan account. It was further pleaded that, though, complainant failed to make due payment, but as a special case to avoid any complications intimated CIBIL about nil dues towards loan account of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 to pay the balance amount if any outstanding in loan account of complainant to OP No 4, who will send intimation to CIBIL for deleting name of complainant from defaulters list and further directed OP No. 1 to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses.  Appeal filed by OP No. 1 was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3.      None appeared for Respondent no. 1 even after publication of notice in paper and in such circumstances, Respondent no. 1 was proceeded ex-parte.

4.      Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

5.      Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that inspite of depositing requisite amount with OP No. 4 and no demand by OP No. 4 from OP No. 1 pertaining to complainant’s loan account and no deficiency on their part, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.  Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submitted that no direction has been passed against him by District Forum; so, revision petition be disposed of.  Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 submitted that intimation has also been sent to CIBIL regarding nil dues pertaining to complainant’s loan account; hence, revision petition be disposed of.

6.      Admittedly, in the complaint itself complainant admitted that OP No. 1 deposited amount in complainant’s loan account and amount of Rs. 22,000/- was deposited on 31.5.2005. It has nowhere been pleaded that any more amount was required to be deposited by OP No. 1 in complainant’s loan account which was deducted by OP No. 1 while settling payment of amount to complainant on account of voluntary retirement. In such circumstances, no amount was payable by OP No. 1 in complainant’s loan account held by OP No. 4.  OP No. 4 alleged in the written statement that amount deposited by OP No. 1 was not sufficient to close loan account, but has not placed on record statement of loan account of complainant and in such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that OP No. 1 was required to deposit any additional amount in complainant’s loan account with OP No. 4. OP No. 4 has already pleaded in its written statement that OP No. 4 has updated CIBIL regarding nil dues towards loan account of the complainant. In such circumstances, there was no justification for learned District Forum to direct OP No. 1 to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant because there was no deficiency on their part in depositing amount.  If there was any deficiency in showing complainant no. 1 as defaulter in CIBIL it might be a deficiency on the part of OP No. 4 for which OP No. 1 cannot be saddled to pay compensation.

7.      In the light of aforesaid discussion it becomes clear that learned District forum committed error in directing OP to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to complainant and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.

8.      Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 1393/2010 – India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Jagdish Prasad & Ors. and order of District Forum dated 10.8.2010 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 240/10 – Jagdish Prasad Vs. M/s. Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. are set aside. Parties to bear their costs.