The record is taken up for order. The complainant files the present case against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of C.P act 1986. In the prayer portion of the complaint petition, the complainant claimed a direction to the O.Ps. to release the part payment amount with principal of loan amount. Others claims are related to compensation for deficiency of service, unfair trade practice from the O.Ps. On dated 26/07/2022 the matter was fixed for hearing of argument. The Opposite Party files brief notes of argument. Complainant refused to file the same. In their Written notes of argument the O.Ps stated that “Basic gist of the complaint is that the complainant had requested for part pre-payment of loan which was not considered by the O.P. Fact remains that the said request has already been honored by the O.P.s by giving the complainant an opportunity and the complainant has already availed the opportunity…. Not just once but twice.” The complainant verbally agreed upon the upper mentioned version of the O.Ps. The O.Ps. stated that they had resolved the issue of the complainant and had reverted back to the complainant on 03.02.2020 via mail dated 03.02.2020.
The ops sited the following judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana and another-Vs- Shakti Co-Operative House Building Society ltd. reported in (20090 12 SCC 369/II(229) CPJ 40(SC) guided as follows:-
“………, the power exercised by the three consumer for a for redressal of consumer complaints being quasi-judicial in nature, they are required to take into consideration all the relevant factors and the material brought on record by both the parties. The averments in the complaint by the consumer cannot be taken as a gospel truth. To support a finding of “ unfair trade Practice”, there has to be some cogent material before the Commission and any inferential finding is not sufficient to attract Section 2(1)(r) of the Act of course, the burden of proof, the nature of proof and adequacy thereof depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.”
The O.Ps. pray that the instant matter should be decided in the light of the aforesaid guideline issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
It needs to be mentioned that during the course of court proceedings the complainant was totally silent about the above mentioned facts.
Points for consideration-
Is there any suppression of material facts by the petitioner? And if so, whether the same would disentitle the petitioner to any relief from the Court? In a recent judgment of Kerala High Court in Pottakalathil Ramakrishnan v. Thahsildar, Tirur and Ors. [ WA NO. 1513 OF 2020], the Division Bench addressed the effects of approaching the court with unclean hands. While addressing the issue, the High court considered the following Supreme Court decisions:
One of the most celebrated cases upholding the principle of clean hands is R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner [1917 (1) K.B. 486], it was observed that applicant should make full and fair disclosure of all the material facts. The court is supposed to know the law but it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement.
In Arunima Baruah v. Union of India [(2007) 6 SCC 120] the Supreme Court held that it is trite law that to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of material fact. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis. It was further held that it is also trite that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands.
In K.D. Sharma v Steel Authoriy of India ltd & ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 481], the Supreme Court held that no litigant can play “hide and seek” with the courts or adopt “pick and choose”.
Further in Dalip Singh v State of U.P. [(2010) 2 SCC 114], the Supreme Court observed that who come with “unclean hands” and are not entitled to be heard on the merits of their case. The person seeking equity must do equity. It is not just the clean hands, but also clean mind, clean heart and clean objective that are the equip-fundamentals of judicious litigation.
A litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced.
We have already noted that there is serious suppression of material facts by the petitioner. Petitioner has not mentioned that his principle claim was resolved by the O.Ps. Fact remains that within a fortnight of the filing of this case his request was considered and the complainant has already availed that option but this fact was not brought to the notice of this Ld. Commission. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter
It is therefore,
O R D E R E D
That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
Copies of the Judgment be delivered free of costs to the parties.
