Mrs. SUSMITA MISHRA, PRESIDENT :-
The C.C case No: 104/2021 is taken up today for order. The Complainant in this case is Sri Jayadev Sahoo, has filed this Consumer complaint u/s. 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Seeking the following reliefs:
“ Make an appropriate direction to settle the matter amicable
and operate the account and also for ‘One Time Settlement’ (OTS)”.
Brief Facts of the Case :-
1). The Complainant had availed a loan i.e. the Sanction amount of Rs. 4,95,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Ninety Five Thousand) only on 27.06.2017, in which the terms of deposit of installments is for 84 months with the rate of interest is @ 10.35%, vide loan Account No: 3364768000023 by the O.P-Bank. In the Complaint petition, the Complainant is stating that he had paid the installment dues regularly. It is further stated by the Complainant in his complaint petition, in the slight delay to pay the installment dues, the above the O.P imposed penal interest charge against the Complainant. Further it is stated by the complainant that he had mortgaged his valuable landed properties for the purpose of security. According to the complainant, the O.P i.e. the Bank Authority is charging interest as well as over dues during the Covid-19, also imposed penalty upon the Complainant and stopped his Account marked as N.P.A without given any opportunity to the complainant and issue a illegal notice, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.P-Bank.
On 08.04.2021, when the Complainant went to the O.P-Bank for payment of installment dues, the O.P did not received the said amount and disclosed that the Account of the Complainant became N.P.A. As a result, finding no other alternative filed this case before this Commission.
2). After received the notice, the learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the O.P-Bank. The Id. Advocate on behalf of the O.P-Bank has filed their written objection and submitted that the case is not maintainable in the eye of law as the allegations made in the Complaint petition are false and frivolous and the court has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Further the O.P submitted that there is no cause of action and also submitted that the Complainant in order to make illegal gain and to escape from paying the outstanding dues and prayed for the above complaint petition is liable to be rejected with costs. But no para-wise explanation is mentioned / written in the objection filed by the O.P.
3). The Complainant as well as his learned Advocate were absent till the date of argument. Heard the learned counsel of the O.P. Perused the record and document filed by the complainant as: “Statement of A/c for General and Agri-Advances for the period 01.01.2020 to 31.08.2021, vide customer ID / Name: 108010578, Jayadev Sahoo, bearing Account No: 3364768000023 [ Xerox Copies Pgs 1-3, Annexure-I]
On the other hand, no documents filed by the O.P-Bank.
4). In view of the Complaint Petition filed by the Complainant and objection filed by the O.P-Bank, the only point for determination is whether the cause of action arise or not within the prescribed period of limitation ?.
5). As per record, in the Complaint Petition, the Complainant is stating that he had availed a loan i.e. the sanction amount of Rs. 4,95,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Ninety Five thousand) only from the O.P-Bank on 27.06.2017, containing 84 installments per month with rate of interest is 10.35% vide loan Account No: 3364768000023. It is further stated by the Complainant that on 08.04.2021, when the Complainant went to the Bank for payment of installment dues, the O.P-Bank did not receive the amount and O.P also disclosed that the Account of the Complainant became N.P.A.
In the present case, we have seen that no cause of action arose against the O.P. The Complainant has no where explained and not produce any more documentary evidence for the above said date i.e. dt: 08.04.2021. We find that the loan availed by the complainant through the above said O.P on 27.06.2017 and the Complaint petition was filed on 07.09.2021 which was also much beyond the two years period stipulated under the C.P Act,2018 / old C.P Act, 1986.
In a complaint petition, there will be different causes on the same incident and the cause of action is indentified on the basis of relief claimed, on whom it is claimed, privity, the cause and effect etc.
In the instant case, we seen that as per the documents filed by the complainant, over dues charges amounting Rs 1,05,547.56/- (Rupees One Lakh Five Thousand Five Hundred Forty Seven and fifty Six paisa) only imposed upon the complainant by the O.P-Bank. [Xerox copy of Annexure-1]
Therefore, under the facts and circumstances and on consideration of the materials available on record, it appears to us that the said complaint petition, having no cause of action and as such is not maintainable in the eye of law. The allegations were found to be false and the complaint petition was found to be frivolous and vexatious which resulted in harassment to the O.P and we are not inclined to accept the version of the Complainant.
In the light of the above discussion, the expression “ cause of action” has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Narayan Givaji Vs. Gurumath Gouda, AIR 1939 Bombay, the Bombay High Court gone the meaning of “ cause of action” as under:-
“A cause of action briefly means ‘right and the infriugement of that right’ where the party has an undoubted right and that right is infringed, a cause of action at once accrues to him.”
Thus, the point of limitation and jurisdiction also arises from cause of action.
In this case, we are relying upon another observation of the Hon’ble National Commission, in case of M/s. Singal Udyog vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors, 2022(4) CPR 265 (N.C) is relevant which reads as follows:-
“Unclean Hands: If a Consumer does not approach the Consumer Protection. Fora a with clean hands and clear conscience and indulges in unethical conduct of projecting fake claims Just to exploit a situation or occurrence such an exercise can neither be encouraged not approved”.
ORDER
After going through the entire record we are unable to reach at any conclusion as on what basis, the O.P is deficient in service. The present complaint petition has no legal basis and devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed accordingly.
Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.
order pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 27th day of April 2023.
