STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.501 of 2009)

1.                 Jagraj Singh s/o Bahadur Singh

2.                 Birinder Kaur w/o Jagraj Singh

Both residents of Katcha Paha, Chhajli Road, Sunam, District Sangrur.

……Appellants

V e r s u s

1.                 LIC Housing Finance Limited, SCO No.2245-46, Sector 22C, Chandigarh through its Area Manager

2.                 Sh. Haria Parshad, Field Officer c/o LIC Office, Geeta Bhawan Road, Opposite Laxmi Palace, Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

              ....Respondents

                                      Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:      HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh.  Harsh Aggarwal, Adv. for the appellants.

                   Sh. O.P. Narang, Adv.  for the respondents.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.                           This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.8.2009, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant) and he was also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to each of the OPs as costs under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) for filing a false and frivolous complaint.

2.                           The complainants obtained a housing loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from OP-1. They were repaying the same in monthly instalments regularly.  In October 2004, the complainants paid an amount of Rs.3,140/-, which was debited to their account, but was not credited to the account of OP-1. They requested OP-1 a number of times to credit the same to their loan account, but to no effect. They also requested OP-1 to furnish a statement of account, but the same was also not furnished.  It was further stated that unnecessary charges and penalty were levied by OP-1.  Thereafter, the complainant stopped paying further instalments of loan amount.  It was further stated that instead of rectifying their mistakes, OP-1 issued a public notice, in which the photographs of the complainants were published and circulated showing them to be defaulters. OP-1 also threatened to take possession of the mortgaged property and auction the same under the SARFAESI Act 2002, though there is no provision, under the same, to publish the photographs, and thereby caused mental harassment and humiliation to the complainants.  It was further stated that OP-1 was deficient, in rendering service, and also indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainants was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed. 

3.                           Since no documents were attached by the complainants, with their complaint, an opportunity was granted to them, by the District Forum, to produce the same, in respect of their case. 

4.                           Thereafter, the District Forum, after hearing the Counsel for the complainants, and perusing the record, dismissed the complaint, at the preliminary stage.

5.                           Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellants/complainants.

6.                           We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.

7.                           The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that earlier a similar complaint was filed before the District Forum, Sangrur, as one of the OPs was residing at Sunam.  He further submitted that, ultimately, that complaint was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction by the District Forum.  He further submitted that the said complaint was filed by the complainants, under bonafide mistake.  He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the  complaint filed before the District Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh in 2009, could be said to be well within time, as the period spent by the complainants/ appellants, by filing the complaint, in a wrong Forum, which had no jurisdiction, was required to be excluded.  He further submitted that the cheque in the sum of Rs.3,140/-, towards instalment, which was debited to the account of the complainants, was never credited to their account, maintained by respondent No.1.  He further submitted that it was thereafter that the complainants stopped paying the instalments.  He further submitted that even the OPs failed to furnish the statement of account, asked for by the complainants.  He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong in holding that the complaint was barred by time.  He further submitted that the District Forum was also wrong in holding that the amount of Rs.3,140/- was credited to the account of the complainants, maintained by respondent No.1. He further submitted that the District Forum was also wrong in holding that when the instalments of the loan amount, due against the complainants, were demanded by the OPs, they filed the consumer complaint.  He further submitted that the District Forum was also wrong in holding that the OPs were not deficient, in rendering service, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice and that the complaint was false and frivolous.  He further submitted that the order passed by the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 

8.                           On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that the District Forum was right in coming to the conclusion that the complaint was barred by time.  He further submitted that the District Forum was right in holding that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OPs and, as such, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.  He further submitted that the order passed by the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

9.                           After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.  The first question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether the complaint was filed by the complainants/appellants within the period of two years, as envisaged by the provisions of Section 24A of the Act, from the date of accrual of cause of action or not.  According to the complainants, in October 2004, they paid an amount of Rs.3,140/-, which was debited to their account, but had not been credited to the account of OP-1. It means that the cause of action accrued to the complainants in October when, according to them, the amount, which was debited to their account, but was not credited to the account of OP-1.  The complaint should have been filed within a period of two years before the District Forum, having the territorial jurisdiction.  However, the complainants did not do so.  On the other hand, they filed a complaint, before the District Forum, Sangrur, which was dismissed on 8.1.2009, on the ground, that it had no territorial jurisdiction. The question arises, as to whether, the time spent by the complainants, in filing the complaint, in District Forum Sangrur, could be excluded from the period of limitation, provided by the Act, or not? In our considered opinion, the said period could not be excluded.  Had the complainants pursued their remedy, in the District Forum, Sangrur, in a bonafide manner, and in good faith, the matter would have been different. A perusal of the record shows that no part of the cause of action, accrued to the complainants, within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Sangrur.  The complainants obtained loan from Chandigarh.  The office of OP-1 is located at Chandigarh. One Haria Parshad, Field Officer, was impleaded as OP-2, in the complaint and his address of Sunam was given.  There is nothing, on the record, that Haria Parshad was having any office at Sunam or Sangrur.  No evidence was also produced that Haria Parshad was the agent of OP-1.  Knowing fully well that the District Forum, Sangrur, had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, the complainants, in a malafide manner, filed the same, in that Forum, and pursued the same therein, not in good faith, but their action was completely permeated with malafides.  Since the earlier complaint was not filed, in good faith, nor it was being pursued diligently, time spent, in pursuing the same, in District Forum, Sangrur, could not be excluded. The District Forum was right, in holding that the period of limitation, could not be extended in favour of a dishonest litigant.  The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that the complaint was barred by time.

10.                       The next point that arises for consideration is, as to whether, the cheque of Rs.3,140/-, the amount whereof was debited to the account of the complainants, was not credited to the account of OP-1.  Ex.C-1 is the document which was produced by the complainants.  In this document, it was stated by the State Bank of Patiala, Branch Cheema, that the said cheque was honoured and the proceeds thereof were paid to Canara Bank, Sangrur. No statement of account of Canara Bank, Sangrur was produced, by the complainants, to prove that the said proceeds were not deposited in their account with the Canara Bank, Sangrur.  If Ex.C-1, from the State Bank of Patiala, could be obtained by the complainants, they could also obtain the certificate, regarding the proceeds, having been paid to the Canara Bank. This false plea was set up by the complainants just with a view to file a frivolous complaint. 

11.                       Not only this, in the reply filed by the OPs, in the complaint filed in the District Forum, Sangrur, it was in clear-cut terms mentioned that the complainants made defaults in making payments of loan in August 2002, January 2003, April 2003 and May 2004.  These instalments, in respect whereof the defaults were made, were paid later on.  It is evident from the said reply that the payment of September 2004 was made vide cheque, which was dishonoured.  The instalment of September 2004 was defaulted and the cheque was subsequently credited, in the account of the complainants on 17.11.2004 by adjusting the instalments of the months of September and October 2004.  In para 3 (d) of the complaint, it was in clear-cut terms stated by the complainants that after October 2004, they had not paid any instalment towards the repayment of loan amount. So, the intention of the complainants was not to pay the remaining amount of loan, demanded by the OPs, and, with a view to harass them, they ventured to file a false complaint. 

12.                       Now coming to the factum, as to whether, the statement of account was not furnished by OP-1, to the complainants, it may be stated here, that OP-1 in para 3 of its reply in clear-cut terms stated that it never refused to issue the statement of account. Even the statement of account was attached with the reply.  The complainants, however, withheld the said statement while producing copy of the reply, filed by the OP, before the District Forum, Sangrur.  It was done so, only to avoid the disclosure of factum that the amount of Rs.3,140/-, referred to above, had been credited to their account by OP-1.  The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that since the OPs never denied to issue the statement of account, there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on their part. 

13.                       The District Forum was right in holding that the publication of photographs of the complainants, under SARFAESI Act 2002, by the OPs, on account of their being defaulters, was an action which did not fall within its domain.  The District Forum was also right in holding that, in case, the complainants had any grievance against the publication of their photographs, on account of the fact, that they were defaulters, they could resort to any other remedy, under the relevant provisions of law. 

14.                       Since the District Forum came to the definite conclusion that the complaint filed by the complainants was false and frivolous, to their knowledge, they were rightly burdened with costs under Section 26 of the Act. The order of the District Forum does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission, and the same deserves to be upheld. 

15.                       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.5,000/-.

16.                       Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

3^rd May 2011.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER