Rajasthan

StateCommission

RP/6/2015

Manager IDBI Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Kiran Kanwar W/o Late. Sh. Gyan Singh Rathore - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjay Rahar

15 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

REVISION PETITION NO: 06/2015

 

Manager, IDBI Bank, Central Processing Unit, Ist floor, Elimek Building, Plot No. 82/83 Gali No.15, Road No.07, MIDC, Andheri ( East) Mumbai & ors.

Vs.

Smt.Kiran Kanwar w/o Late Gyan Singh Rathore r/o Plot No.1, Hari Nagar, Near Khirni Phatak, Jhotwara, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr.Liyakat Ali - Member

 

Mr. Sanjay Rahar counsel for the appellants

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This petition has been preferred against the order dated

2

 

12.4.2013 passed by the learned DCF Jaipur IInd Jaipur by which it restrained the appellants to recover the loan amount from the complainant.

 

The complainant had filed a complaint before the learned DCF that her husband had taken a loan of Rs.10 lakhs from the appellants and an insurance policy securing the loan in case of sudden death of the borrower was also obtained from IDBI Fortis Life Insurance Company. The complainant's husband suddenly died on 10.8.2012. The complainant applied for waiver of the loan under the insurance policy but the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that husband of the complainant had suppressed important facts about his health while taking the insurance. The complaint is still pending before the learned DCF. During pendency of the complaint the learned DCF has restrained the appellant from forcibly recover the loan instalaments. It also restrained the bank from taking possession of the property.

 

A revision petition was filed against this order. This revision has been filed with a delay of 589 days. The petitioner has not stated any reason for this inordinate delay. No application for condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has been

3

 

filed. No reasons for filing the revision petition with delay has been stated.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that this is a matter between the complainant and the Insurance Company and the bank cannot be restrained from recovering the due amount. We do not want to go into this question at this stage while the original complaint is still pending before the learned DCF. The revision petition cannot be admitted on account of inordinate delay. Hence, the petition is not admitted and the same is dismissed.

 

 

(Liyakat Ali ) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Presiding Member

 

 

nm