State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
H.D.F.C. Bank vs Ashutosh Kumar Mishra on 5 July, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 Revision Petition No. RP/8/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 09/10/2015 in Case No. C/144/2014 of District Azamgarh) 1. H.D.F.C. Bank Azamgarh ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Ashutosh Kumar Mishra Azamgarh ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. Bal Kumari MEMBER For the Petitioner: For the Respondent: Dated : 05 Jul 2016 Final Order / Judgement RESERVED STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW REVISION NO. 8 OF 2016 (Against the order dated 09-10-2015 in Complaint Case No. 144/2014 of the District Consumer Forum, Azamgarh ) H.D.F.C. Bank Limited Ailwal Near St. Xavier School Kali Chauraha Azamgarh-276001 Through its Manager ...Revisionist Vs. Ashutosh Kumar Misra Proprietor A K Fertiliser Kasba Maharajganj Post Maharajganj Tehsil Sagdi District Azamgarh R/o Village Bishunpur Urf Maharajganj District Azamgarh ... Opposite Party BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. BAL KUMARI, MEMBER
For the Revisionist : Sri Rajesh Chadha, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : - Dated : 22-07-2016 JUDGMENT PER MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT
Present revision has been filed under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 hereinafter referred as Act by revisionist HDFC Bank Limited against order dated 09-10-2015 passed by District Consumer Forum, Azamgarh in Complaint No.144/2014 Ashutosh Kumar Misra V/s Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Limited. Revisionist is opposite party of said complaint.
Sri Rajesh Chadha, learned Counsel appeared for revisionist. None appeared for opposite party.
We have heard learned Counsel for revisionist and have perused the impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum as well as records of :2: the case.
It is contended by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the complaint filed by complainant/opposite party before the District Consumer Forum does not contain a consumer dispute and is not maintainable under the Act. It is barred by limitation as well as by Section 13(4) of Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 hereinafter referred as SRFAESI Act 2002.
It is further contended by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the complainant/opposite party has already filed a civil suit in respect of same cause of action and the civil suit is pending. The complaint is not maintainable on this ground also.
It is contended by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order passed by District Consumer forum is against law and without jurisdiction.
We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the revisionist.
Section-3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 reads as follows:
"Act not in derogation of any other law. - The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force."
A reading of Section-3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 shows that the remedy available under this Act is in addition to remedy available under other Acts. Therefore, the pendency of civil suit in respect of same cause of action cannot debar jurisdiction of Consumer Forum.
Section 13(4) of SRFAESI Act 2002 provides remedy to the creditor when the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in sub section-2 of Section 13 of the Act. It does not provide remedy for deficiency of service to consumer who may be :3: borrower.
Perusal of impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum shows that the parties have already filed their written statement as well as evidence. The District Consumer Forum has not expressed any opinion on the point of limitation or bar of SRFAESI Act 2002. In the impugned order, the District Consumer Forum has simply said that the parties have already adduced their evidence, therefore, the case should be fixed for oral argument. The revisionist has full opportunity to raise his objections before the District Consumer Forum regarding maintainability of complaint and the District Consumer Forum has yet to pass final order.
Considering the above aspects and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to exercise revisional jurisdiction.
The revision is dismissed with liberty to the revisionist to raise his all objections before the District Consumer Forum at the time of final argument.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties positively within 15 days as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN ) PRESIDENT ( SMT. BAL KUMARI ) MEMBER Pnt.
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. Bal Kumari] MEMBER