State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pankaj Sharma vs The Branch Manager, Hdfc Bank & Ors. on 19 December, 2025
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.27 of 2022
Date of institution : 14.01.2022
Reserved on : 11.12.2025
Date of decision : 19.12.2025
Pankaj Sharma son of Sh. Ved Parkash Sharma, R/o House No.212,
Bazar No.1, Ferozepur Cantt-152001 (Punjab)
...Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, Main Branch, HDFC Bank, The Mall,
Ferozepur City.
2. The Manager HDFC Bank, PO Box #8654, Thriuvanmiyur, PO
Chennai 600041.
3. Ms. Punam Umesh Naik, (Grievance Redressal Officer), Grievance
Redressal Cell, HDFC Bank Ltd., 2nd Floor, Zenith House,
Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034.
4. The Manager/Authorized Signatory, Baba Autos, Zira, District
Ferozepur.
.....Respondent/Opposite party
First Appeal Under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 11.10.2021 passed by District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Ferozepur in CC/366/2020
Quorum:-
Mr. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Argued by:-
For the appellant : None
For respondents No.1 to 3 : Ms. Niharika Goyal, proxy for
Sh. P.M. Goyal, Advocate
For respondent No.4 : Ex-parte
2
FA No.27 of 2022
KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/ complainant against the impugned order dated 11.10.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the complaint filed by complainant against opposite party (in short 'OP'), under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, was dismissed being not maintainable.
3. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
4. Brief facts for the disposal of the appeal, as set out in the complaint, are that the complainant had obtained a car loan for a sum of Rs.2,30,000/-, vide loan account No.49087960 from OPs No.1 to 3 in the year 2017 and was successfully paying the EMI's on regular basis without any default. Thereafter, in the month of March 2020, the complainant extended the said car loan for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, vide loan number 110567303. The complainant was visiting the branch of OP No.1 regularly and requested the officials of the branch to link the said car loan account with MCLR, BPLR system as per guidelines of RBI, vide master circular dated 01.06.2010, regarding the minimum rate of interest on advances granted by a Scheduled Commercial Bank. He further requested the OPs to switch his current floating rate to the base rate calculation under BPLR system and reset the interest as per the said circular of RBI, but all in vain. The complainant also noticed that the OPs charged the same high interest rate even after decreasing the interest rate and the difference in interest and over charge interest could be as 3 FA No.27 of 2022 high as 5% or more. The complainant further stated that it was the duty of the OPs-Bank to inform the customer about the benefit of BPLR and to get the consent of the customer to avail the said benefit, but the OPs failed to do so and violated the guidelines of RBI. The complainant was clueless that what rate of interest was applicable on the above said loans and for what lower rate he was entitled after resetting of the same, for which he was requesting the OPs since long and was ready to pay the requisite fee, if any, to link his account with the MCLR or BPLR system. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Commission and sought directions against the OPs to settle the account of complainant and to revise the installments as per prescribed guidelines of RBI and to adjust or refund the excessive interest charged from complainant in the pending installments in future and further to provide complete details towards the excessive amount received by them. The complainant further sought directions against the OPs to pay Rs.4 lacs as compensation and damages on account of mental pain, financial loss and harassment besides Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.
5. Upon notice, OPs No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed written reply, wherein it raised a specific preliminary objection that the complainant has already filed a civil suit prior to the filing of the complaint in question, which is still pending in the court of Smt. Harmilanjot Kaur, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ferozepur. The OPs further alleged that the matter in suit and present complaint are same in nature and the complainant cannot avail two remedies on the same cause of action. The OPs also filed a separate application for rejection of the 4 FA No.27 of 2022 complaint on the above said ground. The OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint being not maintainable.
6. OP No.4 failed to appear before the District Commission despite service and was proceeded against exparte by it.
7. The District Commission, without going into the merits of the case, considered the application for rejection of the complaint filed by OPs No.1 to 3 and dismissed the complaint being not maintainable, vide impugned order. Aggrieved with the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant for setting aside the same.
8. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents, but respondent No.4 again failed to appear before this Commission despite service and was proceeded against exparte.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 and have carefully gone through the record on the file and written submissions filed by OPs No.1 to 3. The learned counsel for the appellant neither appeared to argue the case nor filed the written arguments, despite granting so many opportunities.
10. The appellant/complainant in his appeal has submitted that the District Commission has failed to appreciate the matter and wrongly dismissed the complaint, without going into the merits of the complaint, on the ground that a civil suit qua similar matter has been filed by the appellant/complainant before the Civil Court. The District Commission has also ignored the well settled law that the Consumer Protection Act has been enacted for the benefit of the consumer and to avoid any tedious litigation. In support of his version, the appellant/complainant has 5 FA No.27 of 2022 relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of 'Ratna Ghosh & Anr. Vs. Dr. P.K. Agarwal & Ors' decided on 24.12.2021 and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of 'M/s Hindustan Motor Ltd. Vs. Amardeep Singh Wirk & Ors. III (2009) CPJ 417. He further relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'M/s Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. N.K. Modi, III(1996) CPJ 1 (SC) and prayed for acceptance of the present appeal.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3/OPs No.1 to 3 has argued that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint on the ground of maintainability as he had already filed a civil suit prior to filing the complaint before the District Commission and the same is pending before the Court of Smt. Harmilanjot Kaur, Civil Judge(Jr.Division) Ferozepur. The appellant/complainant cannot avail two remedies on the same cause of action. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines as stated in the written reply and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
12. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the respondents and have perused the record on the file.
13. The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant/complainant had obtained a car loan for a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- vide loan account No.49087960 from OPs No.1 to 3 in the year 2017 and further extended car loan for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, vide loan number 110567303, in the month of March, 2020 and was regularly paying the EMI's towards the said loans. The appellant/complainant alleged that he was visiting the branch of OP No.1 regularly and requested the officials 6 FA No.27 of 2022 of the branch to link the said car loan account with MCLR, BPLR system as per guidelines of RBI, vide master circular dated 01.06.2010, regarding the minimum rate of interest on advances granted by a Scheduled Commercial Bank. However, they failed to do so and rather charged the same high interest rate even after decreasing the interest rate. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/OPs, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Commission, which was dismissed on the ground of maintainability, vide impugned order. Aggrieved with the same he preferred the present appeal.
14. The main grievance of the appellant/complainant is that the District Commission has failed to appreciate the matter and wrongly dismissed the complaint, without going into the merits of the complaint, on the ground that a civil suit qua similar matter has been filed by the appellant/complainant before the Civil Court. He further submits in his appeal that District Commission has also ignored the well settled law that the Consumer Protection Act has been enacted for the benefit of the consumer and to avoid any tedious litigation. On the other hand, the case of the respondents No.1 to 3/OPs No.1 to 3 is that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint on the ground of maintainability as he had already filed a civil suit prior to filing the complaint before the District Commission. As such, he cannot avail two remedies on the same cause of action.
15. It is an admitted fact, though not specifically rebutted/denied by the appellant/complainant, that before filing the present consumer 7 FA No.27 of 2022 complaint, the appellant/complainant had already approached the Civil Court and filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the same opponents on the same cause of action seeking the similar relief. Now, the point for adjudication before us is whether the appellant/complainant, who had first approached the civil court against the same opponents, can approach the Consumer Commission, with identical pleadings & allegations and almost for the same relief/compensation, to decide a subject-matter that is already sub-judice before the civil court or not?
16. The appellant/complainant in support of his case has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of 'Ratna Ghosh & Anr. Vs. Dr. P.K. Agarwal & Ors' decided on 24.12.2021, wherein it has been observed "As a matter of fact, having regard to the object and intent of the Act, summary trial of Consumer Complaint has to be given precedence over other cases, be it civil or criminal in nature. The question of double jeopardy, self-incrimination or the binding effect of the findings in summary proceedings under the Act, does not arise on facts, at hand. It is pertinent that, neither the rigors of the Evidence Act 1872, nor of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1908 are attracted in the proceedings under the Act, which provides for an alternative system of consumer justice by summary trial". He further relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of 'M/s Hindustan Motor Ltd. Vs. Amardeep Singh Wirk & Ors., reported in III(2009) CPJ 417, wherein it has been observed that "civil suit can simultaneously go on with a consumer complaint, even if the issues involved in the two proceedings are substantially similar. The remedies are independent of each other in 8 FA No.27 of 2022 both proceedings. The remedies are independent of each other. The existence of parallel or other adjudicatory Forums cannot take away or exclude the jurisdiction created under the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, as per provisions of Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, the provisions of said Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other provision of any other law for the time being enforced." The appellant further referred a few more decisions for the same proposition and prayed that matter be heard on merits for its disposal. However, we are not inclined to accept the above said version of the appellant/complainant as none of those cited authorities deal with a similar set of facts, where civil case was filed at the first instance for the same relief. In the present case, when the alternative/additional remedy of approaching the Consumer Commission at the first instance was very much available, the appellant/complainant chose to seek relief under the general law by filing the civil suit and, during the pendency of the same, he filed the consumer complaint for the identical relief/cause of action. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of "Ajay Nagpal Vs. M/s Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd." decided on 15.04.2019 in CC 1764 of 2017, wherein it has been held as under:-
" 40. From the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, the following principles emerge:-
(i) The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a supplement Act and not in derogation of any other Act;
(ii) Any Consumer who is aggrieved by any defect in goods purchased or deficiency in service as also regarding unfair trade practice, can approach the Consumer Fora by filing the complaint under the Act. Even a Class Action Complaint is permissible under the Act.9 FA No.27 of 2022
(iii) The Consumer Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are not Civil Courts.
(iv) The Consumer Fora can provide for the reliefs as contemplated under Section 14 of the Act.
(v) A Consumer cannot pursue two remedies for the same cause of action. However, if a Consumer has not approached for redressel of its grievance under the particular Statute, the Consumer can approach the Consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act. But, if the Consumer had already approached the Authority under the relevant Statute, he cannot simultaneously file any complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.
17 Sequel to our above discussion, we are of the considered view that the appellant/complainant, who had first approached the civil court against the same opponents, cannot approach the Consumer Commission, with identical pleadings & allegations and almost for the same relief/compensation, to decide a subject-matter that is already sub- judice before the civil court. The District Commission has rightly decided the case on the ground of maintainability and there is no material infirmity and irregularity in the order of the District Commission. Finding no merit in this appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, the same is hereby dismissed & the order of the District Commission is upheld.
18. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(H.P.S. MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER December 19, 2025.
(Dv)