Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII, 5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No. 76/03.05.2011
Mr. Sivaraman Pillai Murali Thondiyil
s/o Late Sh. A.S. Pillai, G-158, Sector-41,
Noida- 201301, Gautam Buch Nagar District, U.P …Complainant
Versus
OP1. M/s. Cholamandalam DBS Finance Limited,
New Delhi Branch Office, Pusa Road, Second Floor,
Opp. Metro Pillar No.8, Karal Bagh, New Delhi-110005.
OP2. M/s. Helpline Hospitality Private Limited,
T-1433/1, 2nd Floor, Lane No. 7, Wazir Nagar,
Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi-110003.
Also at : D,74 2nd floor, Sector 2, NOIDA,
Distict Gautam Budh Nagar, UP 201 301
(As per order dated 22.09.2011)
OP3. Citibank N.A. 124 Jeevan Bharti Building,
Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001
OP4. State Bank of Hyderabad, Scope Complex,
Core-6, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003.
OP5. Canara Bank, Maharani Bagh Branch
Ashram Chowk, New Delhi-110014
(impleaded as per order dated 22.9.2011)
… Opposite Parties
Date of filing: 03.05.2011
Date of Order: 16.10.2023
Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
Inder Jeet Singh, President
ORDER
1.1. (Introduction to the name of the parties & their relations) – The Complainant (Mr. Sivaraman Pillai Murali Thondiyil) is employee of OP2. OP2 (M/s. Helpline Hospitality Private Limited) is employer of complainant. The complainant is paid Managing Director in the firm of OP2. OP1 (M/s. Cholamandalam DBS Finance Limited) is non-financial banking institution. OP3 (Citibank N.A.) is Banker of OP1. OP4 (State Bank of Hyderabad) is Banker of OP2, where OP2 maintains its current account no. 52142903367. OP5 (Canara Bank) is another Banker of OP2, where OP2 also maintains its account no. 03492560013.
The complainant (Mr. Sivaraman Pillai Murali. Thondiyil) was aspirant to obtain personal loan from OP1/M/s. Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd, a non-financial banking institution. The complainant applied for loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- by furnishing appropriate documents by executing promissory note, agreement etc. OP2 [M/s. Helpline Hospitality Private Limited, being employer of complainant], had furnished 36 cheques as a security/guarantee to OP1 against personal loan facility of complainant. In this way, the parties have their relations.
1.2. (Introduction to dispute of parties) – The complainant applied to OP1 for personal loan, because of urgency, under the condition the loan should be disbursed to him before the end of May 2007, in case it is not to be disbursed within that time constraint, then loan will not be required/availed by complainant after May 2007, as after that period, he would be able to arrange the amount. OP1 had asked appropriate security, thus, complainant’s employer OP2 issued 36 advance cheques as a security, which complainant handed over to OP1 along with relevant documents got executed for loan. In correspondence between the complainant & OP1 in respect of personal loan, the OP1 assigned personal loan account no. XSEGDEL00000100937 but the loan was not sanctioned upto May 2007, therefore, complainant had requested for return of documents executed and security cheques, however, the same were not returned. But the OP1 started deducting EMI of Rs. 14,664/- by utilizing advance security cheques by mode of ECS. Later-on it was revealed that OP1 had issued a cheque no. 20694 dated 09.06.2007 against loan for Rs. 3,87,657/- in favour of OP2 (M/s. Helpline Hospitality Private Limited) with detail of account no. 52142903367 (which is with OP4). The loan amount was Rs.4 lakhs, but after deducting appropriate charges, the cheque of Rs. 3,87,657/- was issued. Actually, The loan cheque was never received by the complainant nor by OP2 nor it was issued. The OP2’s bankers [namely OP4 and OP5] also confirmed that cheque amount of Rs. 3,87,657/- was never received by them from OP1 in credit of OP2's accounts. The complainant also complains that OP1 had not disbursed the loan amount but EMI were deducted throughout by utilizing the security cheques of OP2. That is why, the complaint was filed.
The complainant seek directions against OP. No.1 as cheque was not given despite legal rights, to make refund of full amount within 30 days of the order along with interest thereof @ 15% inclusive of the principal and charges amount thereof, besides compensation to the complainant on various account and also directing the OP1 to pay the litigations costs of Rs.25,000/- inclusive of advocates fees in connection with the pursuing of this case.
1.3. Whereas the complaint has been opposed by OP1, OP2 and OP3 by filing their separate replies. The OP1 opposed the complaint that it had issued cheque no. 20694 dated 02.06.2007 in favour of Helpline Hospitality Pvt. Ltd./Account no. 52142903367 and the amount was disbursed. The complaint is opposed on all counts as there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. The OP1 has also furnished record of transactions that on 09.06.2017, an amount of Rs. 3,87,657/- was disbursed through cheque/reference no. 020694 and released the amount accordingly.
OP3/Citibank N.A., being banker of OP1, also confirms that as a collecting bank, the cheque was received from Canara Bank and the cheque was accordingly cleared since OP3 had to satisfy that the cheque was being properly sent in collection.
OP4/State Bank of Hyderabad, being banker of OP2, has not filed any reply to complaint but statement of account, with covering letter, of account of OP2 that there were various debit entries in the account from 05.07.2007 to 05.06.2010 of Rs. 14,664/- per month, however, the statement of account was filed to show that it does not depict receipt of any cheque no. 20694 of Rs. 3,87,657/-.
OP5/Canara Bank, being banker of OP2, has not filed any reply to complaint but just furnished statement of account of M/s Helpline Hospitality (i.e. OP2 herein) for period from 01.06.2007 to 14.03.2016 for showing that cheque no. 20694 of Rs. 3,87,657/- was not received in the account of OP2. [However, for want of appearance of OP5, it was proceeded ex-parte by orders dated 29.05.2015/27.07.2015].
But OP2 support the plea of complainant and it affirms that it had issued 36 cheques of Rs. 14,664/- each as security/guarantee under the signature of its Managing Director (who is complainant herein). The OP2 had never applied for personal loan and security was given in order to help the complainant to raise his personal loan. Since the complainant failed to return that amount to OP2, consequently legal notice was issued by OP2 to the complainant.
1.4. The record is voluminous. The complaint has been prepared under various internal headings coupled with documents and each heading refers the documents from different prospective and narration in the complaint is given in the narrative form along-with explanations, perceptions, repeat of various details and also arguments by the complainant. The reply of OP2 is also on the same pattern. Whereas the reply of OP1 and OP3 are very brief and various paragraphs had been replied together compositely. Therefore, the case of each party will be introduced/compiled at one place with material and relevant facts, instead of on the pattern of pleadings adopted by the parties.
1.5. It is observed from record, thus material to mention here that complainant Sivaraman Pillai Murali Thondiyil has been making correspondence with the OPs. At certain points and times, the correspondence is not in his personal capacity but as an employee/ Managing Director of OP2, which was not mentioned in the complaint at certain places. Moreover, the 36 cheques issued as security were also issued by the Managing Director of OP2 ( to say, by complainant as employee of OP2).
The complainant filed this complaint in his personal and individual capacity [not in his official capacity being an employee or Managing Director of OP2 or its attorney] but the relief claimed is for return of paid amount, with interest, as collected from account of OP2 by debiting the account by 36 EMIs. Similarly, there are many documentary record filed, which are, as appearing to be, pertaining to OP2 through the complainant being its employee.
2.1. (Case of complainant) – The complainant was in personal need of money, when his employer/ OP2 could not extend help by advance salary, the complainant was constrained to approach to OP1 to extend him personal loan to be before the end of May 2007 and in case the loan would not be arranged till the end of May 2007, then complainant would not need loan, as subsequent to end of May, 2007, he will be able to arrange amount from his known friends and relatives. Since, OP1 was to ensure strength of security, consequently complainant was asked 36 post-dated cheques as security. The complainant furnished application form, executed promissory note, agreement and furnished them with 36 post-dated guarantee cheques as security got issued from OP2 with its consent, for guarantee of repayment of loan amount, if loan is sanctioned. The complainant applied with a condition that in case loan is not sanctioned within that period, then he will be returned the documents and advance security cheques forthwith vis-à-vis the complainant had also made clear to OP2, that the cheques are being taken as a security, the loan amount will be repaid by the complainant.
However, the complainant was not extended loan facility within the stipulated and specified period. The documents and advance cheque given were also not returned on his request but OP1 start deducting EMI of Rs. 14,664/- from the account of OP2 despite there was no loan sanctioned. The complaint further narrates that complainant started writing, either by email or otherwise as well as by visiting office of OP1 that there no loan amount was received. It was revealed that against loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, an amount Rs. 3,87,657/-, [after deducting requisite charges and fees] was sent by cheque no. 20694, but no such loan was received nor any amount was credited in any bank account. The OP1 and OP3 were requested so since no loan was disbursed nor it was received in the bank accounts of OP2 with OP4 and OP5, then how the installments were being deducted from its account with OP4? The efforts by way of visits and correspondence did not bring any result. The OP3 also failed to render necessary information about the cheque or its release of amount. The accountant of OP2 and the complainant had also made efforts to know and ascertain release of loan amount by way of cheque no. 20694, however, there was no success. The amount was not credited in the account of OP2. The complainant does not maintain any account in his name with OP3. The OP1 was also written from time to time to stop deducting the amount by way of ECS or from utilizing the security cheques but there was no compliance or help at all, all the 36 post -dated cheques were ultimately utilized by the OP1. The OP1 had assured in its correspondence to investigate the matter and to ascertain as to whom the amount of Rs. 3,87,657/- was credited. But no investigation was carried as on each occasion fresh reference number used to be given with assurances to investigate, but nothing was done and informed. That is why many notices were given to the OPs and lastly notice dated 16.08.2010 was issued but no result.
2.2. This complaint was filed after exhausting all correspondence, emails, personal visits and cause of action had arisen and originated on 05.06.2010 when OP1 had got encashed last/36th cheque of OP2, this was a security cheque. There is period of two years for filing the complaint and the cause of action has been continuing one in the present case from the first occurrence of letter dated 02.06.2007 issued by OP1 and thereafter on 05th of each English calendar month and on 05.06.2010 when 36th cheque was encashed. The complainant was awaiting final reply from OP1. There appears to be delay of 04 months in filing the complaint, it may be condoned in the larger interest of justice in this case.
2.3. The complaint is accompanying various documents, duly enumerated in the list filed with the complaint (pages 33-102) from the inception of letter dated 07.01.2008 onwards, inclusive of the correspondence, emails, statement of accounts, reply of notices, legal notice and so on. It does not require to mention at this stage as to which letter was by complainant in his personal capacity and other letters in his official capacity or as an employee/Managing Director of OP2.
3.1 (Reply/case of OP1)- The complaint has been opposed on various counts, there is no cause of action against OP1, it is barred by time, it is frivolous and vexatious complaint, the complainant came without clean hands by concealing material facts. The complainant had availed loan of Rs.4,00,000/- vide loan account no. XSEGDL00000100937 but in order to avoid and escape from liability, the complaint was filed. As per the terms and conditions of loan agreement, time was essence and in case of default, OP1 was entitled to recover the dues from complainant. There were defaults in repayment, consequently there is no consumer dispute. The OP1 by its letter dated 07.01.2008 informed the complainant that his cheques towards EMI are not getting cleared, which also happened when letter dated 11.04.2009 and 13.05.2009 were written that cheques were not being cleared. The complaint is also time barred, as the loan was availed in May 2007 but complaint was filed in April 2011, which is beyond the prescribed period of limitation vis-a-vis there is no explanation for the delay. The OP1 is a financer and it has no concern of inter-se arrangement between the complainant and his previous employer. The complainant has not repaid the loan as per contract and unnecessarily filed the complaint against OP1. Moreover, the complainant is raising/mentioning many disputes and complex questions of facts and law, it needs cross-examination, which cannot be determined in the summary proceedings. There is also arbitration clause in the agreement, which ought to have been invoked by the complainant vis-à-vis the consumer forum lacks the jurisdiction. Thus, complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3.2. (Reply/case of OP2)- The reply of OP2 is a composite reply, which affirms that it is a private limited company and complainant is his employee, working in the capacity of a paid Managing Director. The OP2 never applied by loan application to OP1 nor it was issued cheque no. 020694 for Rs. 3,87,657/- in its name nor paid in account no. 52142903367, being maintained with OP4. It was complainant, who had applied for personal loan to OP1, since OP2 could not accede to request of complainant to advance him financial help. The OP2 narrates the circumstances that 36 cheques were issued as security amount and as guarantor for complainant, who has to borrow amount from OP1, however, as per information received, the complainant was not disbursed loan by OP1 nor any cheque of loan amount was received in the accounts of OP2 vis-à-vis the OP1 had discounted all the 36 cheques of Rs.14,664/- per month despite requests, personal visits and email to OP1 that when no application for loan was made by OP2 nor any amount was received in its bank account, there was no reason for the OP1 to deduct the amount of EMI from his account. The OP2 had issued legal notice to the complainant for return of amount, which was replied by the complainant. The encashment of the OP2's security cheques by the OP1 is abuse of the process of the law. The OP2 in its pleading requests to pass an appropriate order in favour of the complainant and the OP2, as prayed in the complaint by the complainant, in the interest of justice.
3.3. (Reply/case of OP3)- It is a detailed reply of OP3, being composite reply of various paragraphs together, there is also repeat of plea under different heading. Simply, OP3 has no role to play in the dispute being suggested in the complaint, the complainant is not a consumer of OP3, there is also no cause of action against OP3. OP3 is a banker of OP1. OP1 had issued cheque no. 020694 dated 02.06.2007 in the name of Helpline Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.- account no. 52142903367. The cheque was presented by Canara Bank for clearance to OP3 for payment and OP3 being banker of OP1 cleared the cheque on 09.06.2007 (the copy of cheque has been filed along-with the written statement to support this plea of clearance). There is limited role of OP3 to the extent in clearing the cheque of OP1 vis-à-vis OP3 has no knowledge of any transaction or dispute between the complainant and the OP1. The complainant had asked certain information from OP3 about account of OP1, which was not entertained by OP3 since as per standard business practice, the OP3 cannot divulge any information related to its customer/OP1’s account to any third party unless so specifically directed by the customer itself. OP1 is customer of OP3 and the complainant is not customer of OP3.
The cheque no. 020694 dated 02.09.2007 was in the name of OP2 – A/c no. 52142903367 and as per the record of OP3, the cheque was cleared on 09.06.2007. Thus, it appears to be cause of action arose in 2007, when first cheque was deposited by OP1 towards payment of loan amount and not in June 2010 when last cheque was encashed, therefore, the complaint is beyond two year period and it is barred by time. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3.4. (Reply/case of OP4)- The OP4 was served with notice on complaint. There is no reply/written statement by the OP4. However, the OP4 has filed a letter dated 19.02.2011 along-with attested copy of statement of account no. 52142903367 in the name of M/s Helpline Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., to show that there are 36 debits entries in account of Rs. 14,664/- each from 05.07.2007 to 05.06.2010 and also to show that there is no credit entry of receipt of amount of Rs. 3,87,657- in the account of OP2 against cheque no. 020694 issued by OP1.
3.5 (Reply/case of OP5)- The OP5, another banker of OP2, has not filed any reply to the complaint but statement of account from 01.06.2007 to 14.03.2016 to show, as appearing, that there was no credit entry of receipt of Rs. 3,87,657/- in the account of OP2 against cheque no. 020694 issued by OP1. Since OP5 was not appearing, it was proceeded ex-parte by formal orders dated 29.05.2015/27.07.2015.
4. (Evidence)- Complainant Sivaraman Pillai Murali Thondiyil filed his own detailed affidavit of evidence to prove complaint in his personal capacity, it is on the lines of complaint and documents filed with complaint. OP2 led evidence by filing affidavit of Sh. Sunil Kumar Dhaundiyal, AR of OP2, his affidavit is on the pattern of reply of OP2. The OP3 led evidence by filing affidavit of Sh. Jadish Salwan, its attorney and this affidavit/ evidence is also on the track of reply of OP3. It is reiterated that OP4 and OP5 have not filed their pleadings or evidence.
5. (Final hearing)- The complainant, OP1, OP2 and OP3 have filed their respective written arguments, the argument of each party are hybrid of pleading and evidence, therefore, it does not require to reproduce them since case of each party has already been referred.
The parties were given opportunity to make oral submissions, however, except Ld. Counsel for OP3, none of others made oral submissions. Therefore, the written submissions of complainant and other OPs will also be considered.
6.1 (Findings)- The contentions of both the sides are considered, keeping in view the material on record in the form of evidence, documents and other contentions.
At the out-set, an objection is taken by OP1 that matter needs adjudication by civil court as complicated questions of law & facts are involved and it cannot be tried in summary way under consumer law, besides there is an arbitration clause in the agreement. However, this plea of OP1 is paradoxical since proceedings by Arbitrator and by civil court are mutually exclusive. Otherwise, no material is shown in the record or otherwise suggested, to infer that there is complicated question of law or fact, which could be exclusively determined by civil court or that material cannot be adjudicated in summary way. The documentary record and other material on file can be determined by this Forum/Commission. It is also settled law that jurisdiction of Consumer Fora is not barred by virtue of arbitration clause in the agreement. Therefore, it is held this Commission is competent to determine the dispute involved.
There is another objection that complaint is barred by limitation and OP1 & OP3 claims that the period of loan is of May 2007 but the complaint was filed in the year 2011, therefore, by computing period of two years from May 2007, the limitation period ends in May 2009. Whereas, the complainant has reservation that the last cheque of EMI was enchased on 05.06.2010, therefore, by computing period of two years from this date, the complaint is within the limitation period of two years. The complainant has also made a composite plea in his complaint, which has been referred in paragraph 2.2 above, that there appears to be delay of four months, if so, it may be condoned.
By taking into account the rival claim by the parties, the complainant had been pursuing to OP1 & OP3 to protest deducting of EMIs vis-à-vis the loan amount was not received, even legal notice was also sent. The case of OP1 and OP3 is that cheque of loan was of 02.06.2007, which was deposited in account around 09.06.2007. Since last EMI was deducted on 05.06.2010, the cause of action had arisen on that day as till then the EMIs were being protested, consequently, the complaint filed on 03.05.2011 is within the prescribed period of two years. It is held that complaint is not barred by period of limitation.
6.2. By taking into accounts totality of circumstances for other issues, the following conclusions are drawn:-
(i) The complaint has been filed by the complainant in his own individual capacity and not for and on behalf of OP2 M/s Helpline Hospitality Pvt. Ltd [either through an employee or paid Managing Director of OP2].
(ii) The complainant applied to OP1 for personal loan in his name under strict condition to be disbursed prior to May 2007, otherwise he would not require the loan and it is admitted case of complainant that loan amount was not received by him in that time schedule. Moreover, he had also requested OP1 not to go further for loan and to return him the documents executed like loan agreement, promissory note etc. It is abundantly clear that the complainant had withdrawn his application as well as no loan amount was transferred to his any account.
There is not a single fact that complainant himself in his individual capacity as aspirant debtor had issued & given advance cheques to OP1 for availing loan. There is also no fact by complainant that he asked for return of cheques, when he had requested for withdrawal of loan application. Thus, it infers as if complainant had applied for loan & OP1 had not asked him to give advance cheques but 36 advance cheques issued were by OP2.
(iii) The OP3 has proved that a cheque bearing no. 020694 dated 02.06.2007 for an amount of Rs.3,87,657/- was issued by OP1 in favour of OP2/Helpline Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and it was paid/cleared on presentation by Canara Bank (as per overleaf endorsement in clearance on the said cheque proved by OP3). It proves that loan amount was not released to complainant but to OP2/Helpline Hospitality Pvt. Ltd that too after period of May, 2007.
(iv) Since loan amount was issued by way of cheque and generally cheque is deposited by payee/an account holder in its own account and issuing bank does not go to payee bank for deposit of cheque.
(v) The OP2 had issued 36 cheques but complainant claims that the same were issued by OP2 as a guarantor that in case the principal debtor does not repay the loan amount, the cheques of guarantor may be utilized and those cheques were pertaining to the bank account of OP2 maintained with OP4/ State Bank of Hyderabad. However, loan was not extended to complainant. The loan cheque was issued to OP2, then how advance 36 cheques of OP2 could be construed to be cheques by guarantor?
(vi) There is no dispute that the loan amount was repaid by way of EMIs from the account of OP2 by utilizing the advance 36 cheques issued by the OP2 pertaining to its bank accounts with OP4/ State Bank of Hyderabad.
(vii) All the 36 cheques were got discounted by OP1, which were issued by OP2. There is correspondence by OP1 that certain installments were not paid, the principal debtor was asked to clear the outstanding amount.
To say, the OP2 had issued 36 advanced cheques for repayment of the loan amount and the same were realized by the lender/ banker/ OP1 on due dates. Moreover, loan cheque issued was in favour of the OP2.
(viii) The complainant had written legal notice dated 19.03.2010 to OP1 having certain grievances, however, as per substance of this legal notice, it was written by the complainant not in his personal capacity but as a Managing Director of OP2/ M/s Helpline Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. It is also alleged in legal notice that loan amount was not received in the account of OP2.
Since the OP1 had prepared and issued a cheque of loan in favour of M/s Helpline Hospitality Pvt. Ltd/OP2, it infers it may be on request and it never the case of parties that loan cheque was issued or prepared in the wrong name.
(ix) By reading all the clauses (i) to (viii) above it infers that complainant Sh. Sivaraman Pillai Murali Thondiyil had not received any loan in his personal name because he had withdrawn his loan request vis-à-vis on the other side OP3 being banker of OP1 has proved that the cheque of loan was presented and it was cleared for Rs. 3,87,657/-. The cheque was in the favour of Helpline Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. , who is OP2, employer of the complainant.
Since loan was not availed by complainant Sh. Sivaraman Pillai Murali Thondiyil and on the basis of proof of loan cheque bearing no. 020694 dated 02.06.2007 for an amount of Rs. 3, 87,657/-, it was issued by OP1 in favour of Helpline Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and it was paid / cleared on presentation by Canara Bank (as per overleaf endorsement in clearance on the said cheque proved by OP3), therefore, the relationship of the principal debtor/ borrower and of banker/ lender was between OP2 and OP1.
(x) The complainant as well as OP2 in its written statement, which supports the complaint, alleged that there was no entry of receipt of loan amount in the bank accounts maintained by OP2 with OP4 and OP5, however, the statement of account filed either by OP4 or by OP5 is not the certified under the Bankers Books Evidence Act nor the record so furnished could be construed conclusive evidence. Thus, its entries cannot be considered as conclusive evidence. Moreover, the complainant has also not proved the bankers' record.
(xi) Ld. Counsel for OP3 had contended that there was no specific relief claimed by complainant against OP3, this submission of OP3 is based on the prayer/relief clause in the complaint. Moreover, there is similar clause in respect of OP2, OP4 & OP5. To say, the complaint is basically against OP1.
6.3. In view of the conclusions drawn in para 6.2 above, the same establishes and proved the following aspects:-
(a) The complainant is not a principal debtor, thus he is not a consumer since he has not availed the loan in his personal/individual capacity.
(b) The OP1 has proved that a cheque of loan amount was issued in favour of OP2 and it was presented and the cheque was honoured by PO3 being banker OP1.
(c) This complaint is not by OP2 of its grievances that EMIs were collected but without of disbursement of loan. This complaint is by Sh. Sivaraman Pillai Murali Thondiyil.
(d) The complainant Sh. Sivaraman Pillai Murali Thondiyil filed this complaint in his personal capacity, however, the legal notice dated 19.01.2010/Annexure 15 was sent by him as Managing Director of OP2, besides other correspondences also spell out that it was done for and on behalf of OP2. Moreover, in the prayer clause of complaint, he seeks return of paid amount along with interest which was collected by OP1 in the form of repayment by EMIs from the account of OP2. How this complainant in his individual capacity, could seek such relief for OP2; to say this complaint is an attempt of proxy complaint for OP2 [Helpline Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.] by the present complainant [Sh. Sivaraman Pillai Murali Thondiyil], however, it is not tenable.
(e) The complainant failed to establish his case of deficiency of services or of unfair trade practice against OP1.
6.4. Accordingly, for want of proof of complaint and claims against OP1, the complaint fails. The complaint is dismissed against OP1. Since, there is no relief claimed against other OPs , therefore, no order against them. No order as to cost.
However, the present complaint has been dealt under summary procedure, therefore, any observation or finding given would have no bearing on the merits of other case(s) pending, or otherwise, between or amongst the parties to the present complaint. With this observation, the complaint is disposed off.
7. Announced on this 16th October, 2023 [अश्विन 24, साका 1945].
8. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for necessary compliance.
[Vyas Muni Rai] [ Shahina] [Inder Jeet Singh]
Member Member (Female) President
