No. 4/11.05.2011.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT.

Revision Petitioner through Mr. Sukhen Chatterjee, the Ld. Advocate and O.P. through Mr. Barun Prasad, the Ld. Advocate are present.  Mr. Prasad files Vokalatnama today.

This revisional application is directed against order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the Forum below in Execution Case No. 5/D/09.  The ordering portion of the impugned order reads as under :

“That the Jdr/O.P. is directed to pay Rs.23035/- as full and final settlement of the Loan A/c of the Dhr/Complt. and also to return the L.I.C. policy kept as mortgage by the Dhr with the Jdr/O.P.

The Jdr is further directed to issue a clearance certificate to the Dhr with respect to the Loan A/c.

If the order is not complied with within 15 days from the date of order, then a non-bailable warrant of arrest may be issued against the O.P./Jdr”.

Originally the complaint case was decided with the following order dated 02.09.2005 :

“That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.  The complt. do get an order for a sum of Rs. 69,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12%/annum.  He is also entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,000/-.  The O.P. (Bank) is directed to pay off the aforesaid amount within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of order.  The O.P. (Bank) may give the amount of Rs.69,000/- with interest either in cash or by way of adjustment against the loan amount of the complt.  In default of payment of the amount as ordered the complt. shall have the right to realize this amount by executing this order in terms of Sections 25(i), (ii) and (iii) and 27(i) (ii) and (iii) of C. P. Act 1986 (since amended).  It is further directed to the O.P(s) to be conscious enough so that such thing many not occur in future”.

On appeal the State Commission disposed of the complaint case by directing the Executing Forum to proceed in accordance with the law namely under Sections 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for recovery of the amount mentioned in the ordering portion of the Forum finally deciding the consumer complaint on 02.09.2005.

It, therefore, clearly appears from the impugned order that the JDR/O.P. was directed to pay Rs.23,035/- upon full and final settlement of the loan account of the Decree Holder – Complainant.  At the hearing of this revisional application no material has been pointed out by the Revision Petitioner to establish that even after payment of Rs.23,035/- by the JDR/O.P. to the Complainant the loan amount would not stand fully and finally settled.  If the direction so made in the impugned order could not be challenged on merit then also it cannot also be contended that even upon full and final settlement of the loan account the O.P./JDR – Bank would still be entitled to retain the LIC Policy of the Complainant which was furnished as security by the Complainant for repayment of the loan.  Since the loan stood finally settled in view of the order passed in the complaint case with further direction upon the O.P./JDR Bank to pay as above we are of the view that the said JDR/Bank would not be entitled to retain any further  the security so furnished by the Complainant for repayment of the loan.  We, therefore, do not find any illegality and/or infirmity in the impugned order.  The revisional application accordingly fails and the same is, therefore, dismissed.