1.      The present Revision Petition is filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (State Commission) order dated 07.06.2018 in FA No. 1119 of 2017, wherein the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner/Appellant and upheld the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Bandra (“District Forum”) order dated 22.08.2017 in CC No. 167 of 2010.

2.      For convenience, the parties in the present matter are referred as per the Complaint before District Forum.

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that, the OP operating as "Prasad Co-op. Credit Society Ltd." and registered under the Co-operative Societies Act had advanced Rs.3,50,000 as loan him under a loan agreement, to be recovered from his salary every month. The loan was disbursed in two parts: Rs.2,00,000 in his name on 11.12.2000, and Rs.1,50,000 on 27.11.2002 in his wife’s name. He later discovered that OP had recorded the total loan amount as Rs.3,75,000 when OP sent a letter to his employer requesting for a deduction of Rs.7,500 per month from his salary as EMIs. The employer agreed to this request on 23.11.2002. Thereafter, OP regularly received Rs.6,000 per month from his salary, combining the second loan with the initial deduction of Rs.4,000 for the first loan. He remained uncertain whether these deductions pertained to loan of Rs.3,50,000 or Rs.3,75,000. He alleged that OP’s failure to provide accurate loan account details constituted a deficiency in service. After failing to receive satisfactory response from OP, including Mr. Sunil Mehra, who acted as broker, he sought assistance from Credit Consumer Association of India. Feeling aggrieved, he filed a Consumer Complaint seeking disclosure of the repayment schedule, cessation of further deductions, compensation of Rs.75,000 for deficiency of service, and the costs of the proceedings.

Top of Form4.    In reply, OP denied the allegations and asserted that there was no deficiency in service. OP stated that on 11.12.2000, the complainant took a personal loan of Rs.2,00,000, and on 27.11.2002, a second loan of Rs.1,50,000 in the name of Mrs. Vandana. These loans, were to be repaid in 60 EMIs of Rs.5,600 and Rs.4,200 respectively, totaling Rs.9,800 to be deducted monthly from his salary. However, the employer failed to deduct Rs.9,800, resulting in a reduced remittance of EMI of Rs.6,000 towards the loans. The complainant did not pay any EMI of Rs.9,800. The EMI of Rs.6,000 was insufficient to cover the full interest on both loans, increasing the total liability due to accrued interest and overdue amounts. The total repayment amount for 60 EMIs of Rs.9,800 was Rs.5,88,000, while he paid only Rs.6,65,957 and avoided addressing this issue. As of 08.07.2011, the outstanding due for the first and second loans was Rs.2,41,794 and Rs.1,18,401 respectively. The OP sought dismissal of the complaint.

5.      The learned District Forum vide Order dated 22.08.2017, allowed the complaint with the observations and directed the OP as under:

11. As observing the work volume of this Forum and due to other administrative reasons this complaint could not decree previously, reasons as under:

ORDER

1. Complaint No. 167/2010 mostly passed.
2. Def. is failed to provide service and declared that, wrong business system is followed.

3.    Def. should pay Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- for loan repayment schlemiel on or before 30.09.2017 to complainant, otherwise should pay Rs. 1,000/- for monthly loss compensation from 01.10.2017.

4. It is prohibited from unfair trade policy to recover further amount if total Rs. 3,00,000/- is recovered for loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- and total Rs.4,00,000/- for loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from complainant by def.

5.    Extra amount should be returned to complainant before 30.09.2017, if any is recovered for loan from complainant than Rs. 7,00,000/- by def. otherwise interest @ 18% p.a is applicable from 01.10.2017 till paying said amount.

6.    To pay Rs. 50,000/- for mental stress and Rs. 10,000/- for complaint expenses before 30.09.2017 to complainant by def. otherwise interest @ 10% P.A is applicable form 01.10.2017 till paying said amount.”           (Extracted from translated copy)

6.      Being aggrieved, OP filed FA No A/1119/2017 and the State Commission vide order dated 07.06.2018 dismissed the appeal with following observations: -

  “Under these circumstances, when amount of loan was shown excessively in the sum of Rs.3,75,000/- instead of sum of Rs.3,50,000/-, learned Forum held that the society is liable for to furnish the payment schedule to the borrower, ordered accordingly and at the same time took care that not more than Rs.7 lakhs shall be recovered from the complainant in the matter of recovery of loan advanced in the sum of Rs.3,50,000/- only, in the matter of recovery of loan advanced in the sum of Rs.3,50,000/- only, since it is specific contention of the complainant that amount of Rs.6000/-was regularly paid by way of instalment deducted from his salary. We find that the impugned order requiring the society to furnish repayment schedule by 30/09/2017 as also to impose penalty for failure to abide by the order and limited society for total recovery not exceeding sum of Rs.7 lakhs, we consider the order as sustainable according to law as society is not expected to act as an unscrupulous money lender to recover excessive amount from the complainant. It is more than twice of the loan advanced.

       Learned Forum also made reference to the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Hukumchand Gulabchand Jain V/s. Phulchand Lakhamichand Jain AIR 1965 SC 1692, which referred to the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 (section 44À) and the principles of natural justice, which had made specific reference of 'Damduppat'. Thus, money lender if he recovers twice the amount of loan is considered as indulging in an 'unfair trade practice'. In view of the reasons stated in the impugned order, therefore we do not find any merit in this Appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal with additional costs in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- payable by the appellant to the complainant.”

7.      Being dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the State Commission, OP filed the instant Revision Petition No. 2049 of 2018 mainly advancing the following grounds:

A. The fora below failed to consider that the loans of Rs.2,00,000 and Rs.1,50,000 were governed by specific binding agreements dated 11.12.2000 and 27.11.2002 respectively under the Contract Act, 1872. The rights and liabilities of the parties should have been accordingly. These being separate agreements are with individual liabilities. Thus, any consumer dispute should have involved both parties. However, his wife was not party before the Forum.

B. There is no evidence that OP-Society breached the loan agreements. The fora were not authorized to deviate from these binding contracts. Additionally, the application of the common law rule of "Damdupat" by the State Commission was incorrect, as it could not override the explicit provisions of the Contract Act, 1872.

C. The OP-Society was regulated by the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and could not impose loan terms beyond the scope of the rules and regulations of this Act. It acted within its legal framework and the Registrar’s approved terms.

D. The claim that the OP debited Rs. 3,75,000 against a loan of Rs.3,50,000 was factually incorrect and unverified by the fora. Furthermore, the Complainant was offered renegotiated loan terms, which he did not accept, a point also ignored by the forums.

8.    In his arguments, the learned counsel for the Petitioner/OP reiterated the factual background, evidence, and written versions and  contended that the District Forum and State Commission erred by expanding the scope beyond the complainant’s initial grievance of not receiving EMI statements. The repayment details were furnished to him vide letter dated 02.09.2007 and an offer to renegotiate the loan was also made on 21.03.2009. The invoking rule of Damdupat and Section 44-A of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was incorrect, citing Hukumchand Gulabchand Jain v. Fulchand Lakshmichand Jain, (1965) 3 SCR 91 and Syndicate Bank v. Indu Gurava Reddy, (1998(1) APLJ 50 (HC). He emphasized that Section 44-A did not apply to loans exceeding Rs.10,000 for non-agricultural purposes, referencing Nivuruti Narayan Bankar v. Adarsha Padhegaon Vividh Karyakari Seva, 1984 MhLJ 293 and Ghanshyamdas Madanlal Chaudhary v. Chikhali Urban Co-op. Bank 2007 (3) MhLJ 567. He argued that the fora below lacked jurisdiction to interfere with contractually agreed interest rates, citing Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and ICICI Bank v. Maharaj Krishan Data, 2014 SCC OnLine NCDRC 824. They sought to set aside the impugned orders, asserting that the fora committed jurisdictional and legal errors by interfering with the contractual terms and misapplying relevant laws.

9.      The learned counsel for Respondent /Complainant emphasized the factual background of the complaint and asserted that the OP failed to provide the crucial repayment schedule requested in a legal notice dated 12.11.2009, which was the primary reason for filing the complaint. The counsel argued that the principle of Damdupat, as upheld by the Supreme Court in Hukum Chand Gulab Chand Jain v. Phulchand Lakshmi Chand Jain (1965) 3 SCR 91, was applicable to both parties as they follow the Hindu faith. He asserted that OP had received Rs.12,30,517 and refund the surplus amount beyond Rs.7,00,000 with 18% interest from 01.10.2017. He argued that the OP’s failure to provide the Repayment Schedule constituted a deficiency of service, as recognized by both forums. The Counsel sought dismissal of the Petitioner’s review petition and written submission, asserting that the matter has been justly decided by the lower forums on merit.

10.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for the parties available.

11.  Admittedly, on 11.12.2000, the complainant took a personal loan of Rs.2,00,000 (first loan) and on 27.11.2002, he again took a personal loan of Rs.1,50,000 (second loan) in the name of his wife Mrs. Vandana. After processing of second loan complainant had been regularly paying an amount of Rs.6,000 towards EMI for both the loans clubbed together. There is no dispute regarding EMI payments. It is the contention of the complainant that the OP failed to provide mandatory Repayment Schedule to him, despite repeated requests. This schedule was crucial for the respondent to understand his EMI obligations and loan repayment status. The main issue to be determined is whether there was deficiency in service on part of the OP in not providing the repayment schedule to the complainant? And, if so, what is the liability of the OP in this regard?

12.  As regards the issue of non-joinder of his wife as party to the case, the complainant contended that the OP had addressed letter dated 12.09.2007 in his name with respect to the same loan. OP had already acknowledged that the payment of both the EMIs had to be deducted from the salary of the complainant itself. Thus, it was not necessary to make his wife a party. He also referred to the written statement filed by the OP wherein OP had admitted that the complainant had taken the loan for himself but in the name of his wife and all the communications as regards loan were addressed to him only. He further contended that the ground of his wife not being made party was not raised before the District Forum and the State Commission. It is to be noted, that though such ground was not raised at the District Forum, the same was raised by the OP in Appeal before the State Commission.

13.  The total loan obtained was Rs.3,50,000 and the employer was informed by OP vide letter dated 28.11.2007 about loan of Rs.2,00,000 taken on 11.12.2000 in the name of the complainant; and the loan of Rs.1,50,000 granted in the name of his wife, Mrs. Vandana Adsule on 27.11.2002. Evidently, no repayment schedule was given to him as is revealed from the Order of the learned District Forum which stated “it is clear that the opponent has not given such Re-Payment Schedule to the complainant”.

14.  As per the terms of loan, EMI for Rs.2,00,000 was Rs.5600 for 60 months; and EMI for Rs.1,50,000 loan was Rs.4200. Thus, the total loan instalments were of Rs.9800 for 60 months. The Complainant had regularly paid instalments of only Rs.6000. As per OP, since this amount was below the EMI amount, it was only used towards the interest payable while the principal amount remained. On the contrary, the Complainant claims that he was confused as to the real amount of loan and contended that he was unsure if the loan was Rs.3,50,000 or Rs.3,75,000 and hence, he wanted a clarification as to the repayment schedule, which the OP allegedly failed to provide. It is important to note, that all communications were made with respect to a loan amount of Rs.3,50,000, except one letter dated 23.11.2002 wherein his Employer made a reference to letter dated 19.11.2002 sent by the OP to the employer. However, perusal of the paper book reveals that no letter dated 19.11.2002 has been put on record by any party, neither has any acknowledgment of the letter dated 23.11.2002, been placed on record. The Complainant paid a total of Rs.6,65,957 against the loan of Rs. 5,88,000/- (inclusive of EMIs and interest). The same has been admitted by the OP in its written statement before the District Forum. The learned District Forum observed that “it is clear that the opponent has not given such Re-Payment Schedule to the complainant”. Perusal of the records reveal that no repayment details notified to the Complainant as claimed by the OP were brought on record by the OP. Further, in the written submissions the OP annexed certain repayment details and the perusal of the same reveal that these were salary slips and bank statements of the Complainant instead of any repayment schedule notified by the OPs to the Complainant.

15.  It is a well-established principle that this Commission has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent findings of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission except for any patent illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error. In Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales & Services Ltd., (2022) SCC 31 dated 08.09,2022 it was held that:

 "In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order [Goldrush Sales and Services Ltd. v. Rajiv Shukla, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 702] the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.”

16.    In Narendran Sons v National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1760 dated 07.03.2022, wherein it was held as under:

 "The NCDRC could interfere with the order of the State Commission if it finds that the State Commission exercised jurisdiction has not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. However, the order of NCDRC does not show that any of the parameters contemplated under Section 21 of the Act were satisfied by NCDRC to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the State Commission. The NCDRC has exercised a jurisdiction examining the question of fact again as a court of appeal, which was not the jurisdiction vested in it"

17.    In Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 dated 18.03.2011 it was held as under:

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from section 21(b) 0f the Act, under which the said power can be exercise only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the court below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”

18.   Based on the above discussions and on careful perusal of material on record, we do not find merit in the contentions in the present Revision Petition. At the same time, as regards liability of the parties and tenability of multiple reliefs while making such refunds, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, in Civil Appeal No.6044 of 2019 decided on 07.04.2022 has held:-

“We are of the opinion that for the interest payable on the amount deposited to be restitutionary and also compensatory, interest has to be paid from the date of the deposit of the amounts. The Commission in the Order impugned has granted interest from the date of last deposit.  We find that this does not amount to restitution. Following the decision in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DS Dhanda and in modification of the direction issued by the Commission, we direct that the interest on the refund shall be payable from the dates of deposit. Therefore, the Appeal filed by purchaser deserves to be partly allowed. The interest shall be payable from the dates of such deposits.

At the same time, we are of the opinion that the interest of 9% granted by the Commission is fair and just and we find no reason to interfere in the appeal filed by the consumer for enhancement of interest.”

19.   Also the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, in CA Nos. 4910-4941 of 2019 decided on 10.05.2019 has held that multiple compensations for singular deficiency is not justifiable. Therefore, award of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant towards compensation for mental stress, over and above the component of interest already awarded is untenable.

20.   In view of the foregoing deliberations and established precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Order of learned District Forum dated 22.08.2017 to the extent of Paragraphs 5 and 6; and the Order of the State Commission dated 07.06.2018 are is modified as under:

1. Extra amount beyond the total of Rs.7,00,000, recovered from the Complainant if any, should be returned by the OP to the Complainant before 30.09.2017. Otherwise, interest @ 9% per annum is applicable from 01.10.2017 till paying said amount.
2. There shall be no order as to costs. The compensation of Rs.50,000 awarded to the Complainant for mental stress is set aside.
3. The Order of the learned District Forum as modified above shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of this order. In the event of delay, the interest applicable on the amount due for such extended period shall be @ 12% per annum.

21.    With the above directions, the Revision Petition No. 2049 of 2018 is disposed of.

22.    All pending Applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.