Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rohit Bajaj . vs Icici Bank Ltd.. on 15 March, 2023
Bench: A.S. Bopanna, C.T. Ravikumar
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6511-6512 OF 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6511-6512 OF 2009
ROHIT BAJAJ & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ICICI BANK LTD. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as also the respondents and perused the appeal papers.
The grievance put forth on behalf of the appellants is that the appellants were before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (‘the NCDRC’) raising a grievance with regard to the respondent-Bank having enhanced the drawing limit under the Kisan Vikas Patra (‘the KVP’) scheme and such grievance had arisen to the Signature Not Verified appellants in that regard as there was alteration Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA Date: 2023.03.17 11:07:48 IST Reason: with regard to the originally provided drawal limit and therefore deficient. However, the NCDRC having 1 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6511-6512 OF 2009 taken note that in respect of the very scheme relating to the KVP, the appellants were before the forum in an earlier petition bearing O.P. No.7 of 2007 making out a grievance with regard to the higher rate of interest being charged as against the one which has been fixed at 6.4% per annum, wherein an Order dated 17.04.2008 had been passed in favour of the appellants.
In the said complaint, as noted the appellants had succeeded. The NCDRC in that regard on taking note that the grievance originally put forth by the appellants, were through the letters dated 24.04.2006, 01.09.2006 and the legal notices dated 07.08.2006 and 11.10.2008 has arrived at the conclusion that since the grievance had originally arisen during February, 2006 and the drawal limit not being made a subject matter in the initial complaint bearing O.P. No.7/2007, the same is hit by the provisions of Order II Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that such conclusion reached by the NCDRC is not justified. He would point out that initially the grievance essentially was with regard to the manner in which the rate of interest had been altered and that was the only issue which had been raised through the letters 2 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6511-6512 OF 2009 referred to above, as also the legal notices. In that light it is pointed out that when the first complaint was filed, even though there was certain change made with regard to the drawal limit, the need for assailing the same had not arisen. But, when it was further changed, the cause of action had arisen. Learned counsel for the respondents, would however, seek to sustain the order passed by the NCDRC. It is contended that when the grievance was being put forth in respect of the scheme namely, the KVP and admittedly, the alteration of the drawal limit had already been made during February, 2006, the same ought to have been raised in the initial complaint.
Having noted the rival contentions what is necessary to be referred is the cause of action that had been pleaded in paras 33 and 34 of the subsequent complaint from which the impugned order has arisen. A perusal of the same would indicate that the cause of action pleaded therein is with regard to the grievance which had arisen in the month of September, 2008 and March, 2009 but not to a period anterior to when the earlier complaint had been filed. If that be the position, in the instant case, though the first complaint bearing OP No.7/2007 was filed, the same exclusively related to the charge of higher interest than what had been promised at 6.4% per annum and not 3 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6511-6512 OF 2009 with regard to the drawal limits though as on that date there was a change with regard to the drawal limits from 95% to 105%. The grievance raised in the subsequent change which was made thereafter is what has been pleaded in the present complaint as the cause of action which had arisen from the month of September, 2008 and March, 2009. If that be so, the subsequent complaint cannot be stated to be hit by order II Rule 2(3) of the CPC as referred to by the NCDRC as the claim which was abandoned is not being raised.
In so far as the merit of the claim put forth in the complaint, we express no opinion at this stage since it is for the NCDRC to entertain the complaint and thereafter examine the matter on its own merits after providing opportunity to both the parties. Therefore, to the said extent, we aside the order dated 01.07.2009 passed by the NCDRC and restore the Consumer Complaint No.66/2009 to the file of the NCDRC to provide opportunity to the parties, including an opportunity to the respondents to file their version and thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Since the parties are represented by their learned counsel, we direct that they shall appear 4 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6511-6512 OF 2009 before the Registry of the NCDRC on 05.04.2003 as a date to take instructions on the hearing date on which they are required to appear before the Bench without expecting issue of fresh notice. The NCDRC may thereafter regulate the matters and dispose of the same on its own merits, in accordance with law.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
.......................J. ( A.S. BOPANNA ) .......................J. ( C.T. RAVIKUMAR ) NEW DELHI 15th MARCH, 2023 5 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6511-6512 OF 2009 ITEM NO.108 COURT NO.12 SECTION XVII-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 6511-6512/2009 ROHIT BAJAJ & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS ICICI BANK LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 15036/2019 (XVII-A) Date : 15-03-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Appellant(s) Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AOR Ms. Sarvshree, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhishek Singh, AOR Ms. Suruchi Suri, Adv.
Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, AOR Mrs. Meenakshi S Devgan, Adv. Mr. Abhilekh Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Ms. Suruchi Suri, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the court made the following O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6511-6512 OF 2009. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
6 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6511-6512 OF 2009 SLP(C) No. 15036/2019 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned judgment and order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the NCDRC, we see no reason to interfere.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Geeta Ahuja) (Dipti Khurana)
Assistant Registrar-cum-PS Assistant Registrar
(Signed order in Civil Appeal Nos. 6511-6512 of
2009 is placed on the file)
7