This is a complaint u/s - 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief fact of the complaint is that the complainant took loan from the O.P (Indusind Bank Ltd.) vide agreement No. WBPO 1030 H dated - 29.4.2008 and paid 1st premium of Rs.1573/-and 29 numbers of post dated Bank Cheques for EMI to the opposite party on the very date. Thereafter, the complainant paid off his entire loan amount to the O.P within 30.09.2009. But, on 19.03.2013 the O.P issued a letter to the complainant claiming a sum of Rs.18, 909/- as dues.
So, the complainant had filed a complaint case against the O.P before this Commission on 17.04.2013 Vide Case No. CC/10/2013 and on hearing of both parties this Commission passed final order on 26.02.2014 directing the O.P to issue no objection certificate i.e. clearance certificate in respect of loan, to pay Rs.3, 000/- towards litigation cost and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant and the O.P complied with that order.
Thereafter, the complainant received a notice dated 22.03.2018 issued by the Secretary, Sub-Divisional Legal services Committee vide Pre-litigation Case No. 380/2018 which was filed by the O.P (Indusind Bank Ltd.) against the complainant claiming Rs.15,615/- as per loan agreement Vide Agreement No. WNPO 1030 H with a direction to the complainant to appear before the Lok Adalat on 22.04.2018 at Siliguri Court premises. Accordingly, he appeared there and submitted all documents before the Sub-Divisional Legal Service Committee and the PL case was dropped.
Due to these whimsical acts of the O.Ps, the complainant passing his days with mental agony and harassment and suffering monetary loss for this case.
The opposite party (Indusind Bank Ltd.) has contested this case by filing written version denying and disputing the claims and contentions of the complaint with a prayer for dismissal of the case as frivolous and vexatious.
The specific stand of the O.P is that any service deficiency has not been committed by them. The O.Ps had routed the PL matter through the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and approached the Lok Adalat and taking steps in consonance with a statutory law is not a deficiency in service. The Lok Adalat is not a coercive legal measure and the opposite parties had immediately clarified that there was nothing left to be claimed.
Moreover, the O.Ps has issued no objection certificate to the complainant so there is no relationship exists between the complainant and the O.Ps. Thus, the question of being consumer does not arise at all and as such the complaint is not maintainable as there is no cause of action arose against the O.Ps and is beyond the jurisdiction of this Commission and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the complainant a consumer u/s.12 (1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant case?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as he prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Considering the nature and character of the case all the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience.
Seen and perused the petition of complaint, written version which are supported by affidavit and written arguments filed by the both parties.
We have also heard the arguments by the Ld. Advocates of the complainant and opposites parties. Admittedly, the O.Ps issued no objection certificate i.e. clearance certificate in respect of the loan to the complainant. On perusal of the complaint and evidence - in – affidavit we have also no hesitation to hold that the relationship between the complainant and the O.Ps has been seized by way of issuing no objection certificate by the O.Ps. So, the complainant is not consumer as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The Ld. Advocate of the O.Ps argues that the contents of the disputes involved of the complainant is not a consumer disputes and does not fall under the purview of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He also argues that the complainant failed to appreciate that the O.Ps had filed a PL matter through the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 for non-payment of the loan amount which has already been settled in the previous case and approached the Lok Adalat and taking steps in consonance with the statutory law is not a service deficiency there is no cause of action arose against the O.Ps and there is also no cause arose at all for mental agony, harassment or monetary loss to the complainant as because since the very beginning the complainant has been informed that corrections measures have been taken, however, he is claiming damages for unjust enrichment. In reply the Ld. Advocate of the complainant submitted the act of the O.Ps amount to a gross deficiency of service. We have gone through the entire materials on record and given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the Ld. Advocates of both parties. From the phase of the complainant it appears that previously this complainant filed a complaint case before this Commission Vide Case No. CF/10/2013 against the insurance company i.e. the present O.Ps and that case has already been disposed of in favour of the complainant on 26/02/2014 and the O.Ps issued no objection certificate in favour of the complainant but at present the complainant filed this case only because he received a notice from Lok Adalat regarding a pre-litigation case filed by this O.Ps. It also appears that in the Lok Adalat it has already been disposed of as because the matter has already been adjudicated by this commission in the year 2014. But the claim of the complainant is that as he has received the notice he has been suffering from mental agony. We find that in the present case the complainant is not entitled to get any relief due to service of a notice of Lok Adalat. Complainant has already received the award of compensation for his mental agony and also got the litigation cost for this Forum on the previous case on the self same issues. According to the present allegation to the complainant it is not within the purview to settle the dispute in a Consumer Commission according to the Consumer Protection Act. According to the Consumer Protection Act he has already received award in his previous case being No. CF/10/2013. We also find that in the present case there is no cause of action as it is not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In the above discussion we find and hold that this case is not maintainable as it is not come within the purview of C.P. Act and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this case as he has already received the award from the O.Ps on the same cause of action.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, for ends of justice; it is;-
ORDERED
that the instant case be and same is dismissed on contest without costs.
Let a copy of this final order be sent to the concerned parties through registered post with A/D or by hand forthwith for information and necessary action.
Dictated & Corrected by me
