State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India vs Advocate Shilender Chaudhary on 27 August, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.2072 of 2007 Date of Institution: 08.08.2007 Date of Decision: 27.08.2010 The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Model Town, Branch, Karnal. Appellant (OP) Versus Advocate Shilender Chaudhary son of Shri Ram Lal Chaudhary, Resident of House No.331, Old Housing Board Colony, Karnal. ---Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member. Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member. For the Parties: Mr. S.P. Singh, Advocate for appellant. None for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal is preferred against the order dated 29.06.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal whereby complaint No.314/2006 filed by the respondent-complainant against the appellant-opposite party was accepted by granting following relief:-
..we direct Op to issue no objection certificate and to cancel the hypothecation of the car in question and to refund the amount of Rs.5300/- to the complainant deposited by him over the above 60 instalments. The order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.
The brief facts of the present case not disputed between the parties are that the respondent-complainant had obtained a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the appellant-opposite party on 5.10.2000 for purchase of car. The loan was to be repaid by the complainant to the opposite party in 60 instalments of Rs.5300/- each which commenced from November, 2000. After depositing 61 instalments, the complainant sought No Objection Certificate as well as the refund of Rs.5300/- i.e. the amount of 61st instalment, however, the opposite party informed to the complainant that a sum of Rs.39,000/- was still due and outstanding against the complainant. Legal notice through registered A.D. was also served by the complainant upon the opposite party. Thus, alleging it a case of deficiency of service, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum filing the present complaint.
Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and contested the complaint. In the written statement, it took the plea that a sum of Rs.40,289.93 was due from the complainant for which the opposite party had filed a civil suit against him on 24.8.2006 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence brought on record, the District Consumer Forum accepted the complaint by granting following relief:-
..we direct OP to issue no objection certificate and to cancel the hypothecation of the car in question and to refund the amount of Rs.5300/- to the complainant deposited by him over and above 60 instalments. The order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order. The complaint stands disposed off in terms of the orders made above with no order as to costs.
Hence this appeal.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party that as the controversy involved in the present case is with respect to the outstanding amount qua the loan obtained by the complainant, therefore, the same cannot be decided by the Consumer Fora the matter being related to the complications of account and interest on the loan amount. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party referred to the decision of the Honble National Commission in case law cited as R. Sethuraman versus The Manager, Indian Overseas Bank and Another, 1996(2) CPC 283 (N.C.), wherein it has been held that:-
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 12, 17 and 21 Bank loan Complicated matter Complainant availing loan facilities from the opposite party Allegedly whole amount of dues was wiped out by complainant who claimed that he was entitled to Commission for his sick unit as per guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India in that behalf State Commission came to the conclusion that matter being related to the complications of account and concession, the case was not covered under the Consumer Protection Act for which Civil Court is the proper forum Order of State Commission upheld in revision.
The facts of the instant case are fully attracted to R. Sethuramans case (Supra) as the controversy involved between the parties in the present case is with respect to the outstanding amount towards the loan amount and the same can be decided by the Civil Court in a better and perspective manner.
Another contention raised on behalf of the appellant-opposite party is that as a civil suit filed by the appellant-Bank is subjudice before the Civil Court, therefore, the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on case law cited as Karam Singh versus State Bank of India and another, 1994(2) 474 (SCDRC Haryana), wherein this Commission has held that:-
6. We are inclined to hold that one cannot find any meaningful merit in the aforesaid submission. What first deserves highlighting is the fact that admittedly a civil suit is pending betwixt the parties before a court of competent jurisdiction. It was now well settled within the consumer jurisdiction that when an identical or an allied cause of action is in seizing in the plenary courts of law then the redressal agencies under the Act must stay their hands. It is obvious that no parallel proceedings for virtually the same or connected cause of action should be permitted. It would be hardly appropriate that whilst the rights of the parties are yet under-trial before a Civil Court a collateral proceedings may be taken cognizance of by the consumer Fora. The District Forum was, therefore, not for wrong that if there was any remedy available to the complainant it is by way of a civil suit for damages against the bank or any relief in the pending proceedings already. On this larger issue as well the order of the District Forum must be upheld. This apart there also seems to be merit in its view that the somewhat curious allegations in the complaint would not clothe the appellant with the status of the consumer, despite the width of the definition of deficiency under the Act which was the main plan of the learned counsel for the appellant.
The instant case is fully covered by Karam Singhs case (Supra).
Admittedly, the civil suit filed by the appellant-Bank is pending before the Civil Court and therefore, the parallel proceedings for the same cause of action in the present complaint would be a misuse of the process of law and the complainant can seek relief in the said civil suit by filing counter claim and as such the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.2700/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: (Justice R.S. Madan) 27.08.2010 President (Dr. Rekha Sharma) Member (Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member