BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JUNE 2023
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1040/2015
Sri Thirumala Rao, S/o U.V. Raghavan, Aged about 42 years, No.3442/27, 3rd Cross, 1st Main, ‘C’ Block, Gayathri Nagar, Bangalore 560 021. (By Sri S.P. Shashidhar) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
1. | Barclay’s Investments & Loans India Ltd., Reg. Office at Malavika Centre, Ground Floor, No.144-145, Kodambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam Chennai 600 034, Rep. by its C.E.O. | ..…Respondent/s |
2. | Barclay’s Investments & Loans India Limited, Having its Branch Office at No.4, 1st Floor, Prestige Emerald Madras Bank Road Next to Hotel Airlines, Bangalore 560 025, Rep. by its Manager/C.E.O. Mr. N. Girish. | |
3. | The President & Member, 4th Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore Urban District, Shanthinagar BMTC Bus Stop Terminal, Shanthinagar, Bangalore. (By Sri T.L. Suhas for R-1 & 2. Notice to R-3 dispensed with) | |
ORDER ON ADMISSION
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.13.08.2015 passed in CC.No.1472/2014 on the file of 4th Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru.
2. The brief facts of the complaints are hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that he availed a loan to the tune of Rs.1,30,000/- in the year 2008. The said loan was cleared by the complainant and the complainant was asked for clearance certificate. Inspite of issuance of clearance certificate, the Opposite Party initiated a private complaint for recovery of the outstanding due amount vide CC.No.742/2012. The said private complaint was initiated by the respondent without any valid reasons. Inspite of repayment of the entire loan, the respondent bank had misused the cheque issued by the appellant and tendered for realization which resulted in bouncing of the cheque for which the respondent had initated a complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Subsequently, the said complaint was compromised before the Lokadalath held on 04.01.2013 and the complainant was acquitted from the offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Due to initiation of the said proceedings, the complainant suffered humiliation in the society, hence, alleged unfair trade practice against them and claimed for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- by filing a complaint before the District Commission.
3. The District Commission after trial, dismissed the complaint without any valid reasons. Infact the complainant has repaid the entire loan amount as agreed for issuance of NOC/Clearance Certificate, but, the Opposite Party have rendered unfair trade practice in tendering the deposited cheque for realization and initiated a false private complaint before the Jurisdictional Magistrate Court. The District Commission has not appreciated the suffering suffered by the complainant and also humiliation suffered by family members. Though the matter was ended in compromise, the Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation, but, the District Commission dismissed the complaint without any reasons, hence, prayed to set aside the Order passed by the District Commission and allow the complaint by directing the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in the interest of justice and equity.
4. The appellant not present before this Commission to submit his arguments.
5. On perusal of the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order and documents produced before the District Commission, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had repaid the entire loan amount of Rs.1,30,000/- with interest as per the undertaking. It is also not in dispute that the cheque which was issued by the complainant was tendered for realization which resulted dishonor. Subsequently, this respondent had filed a private complaint vide CC.No.742/2012 u/s 138 of N.I. Act. The said complaint was brought before the Lokadalath on 04.01.2013 and both parties have compromised the matter and subsequently, the complainant set free against the alleged offence punishable u/s 138 N.I. Act. The NBW issued against the complainant is also recalled. Subsequently, the complainant came up with this complaint before the District Commission alleging unfair trade practice in tendering a cheque for realization even after repayment of the entire loan amount. The District Commission after trial has dismissed the complaint holding that no materials were placed before the District Commission to show that the complainant and his family members suffered inconvenience, humiliation and insult and also pointed out when the matter ended up with compromise before the Lokadalath and the question of consumer dispute does not arise, hence, dismissed the complaint.
6. The Order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with Law. The District Commission is framed for the purpose of adjudicating the matter with respect to the consumer dispute existed between the parties. We here noticed that when the matter was compromised between the complainant and the Opposite Party, the question of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice does not arise. The complainant had not established any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party with respect to the transaction. Hence, he is not entitled to get any relief as claimed. The Order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with Law. No interference is required. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The Appeal is dismissed.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
