BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.198/15.

Date of instt.: 03.09.2015. 

                                                    Date of Decision: 07.11.2016.

Jarnail Singh S/o Chanan Singh, r/o Village Harnola, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                            ……….Complainant.      

                                           Versus

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Kangthali Branch, Distt. Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

..……..Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.                                                                                             

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                      Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Krishan Atwal, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Raj Raman Dixit, Advocate for the opposite party.

                     ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                      The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is agriculturist and having limit with the Op and has account No.80968800046377.  It is alleged that the complainant has raised loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Op.  It is further alleged that the Op has charged interest on exorbitant rate and now the Op has demanded Rs.2,24,487/-.  It is further alleged that the complainant has requested the Op to adjust the amount already deposited by him but he did not do so.  This way, the Op is deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.      Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has filed the present complaint as counter blast of recovery suit titled as Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank Vs. Jarnail Singh; that the complainant is defaulter of the bank and the rate of interest of the defaulter is also charged as per terms and conditions of RBI; that the complainant is in arrears of Rs.1,63,471/- till 09.11.2014 and Rs.55,171/- as interest at the rate of 13.05% and total amount becomes Rs.2,18,642/- till 30.09.2015.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.      In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and document Mark-C1 and closed evidence on 14.07.2016.  On the other hand, the Op tendered in evidence Mark-R1 and closed evidence on 07.09.2016.   

4.      We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

5.      Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint.  He argued that the complainant is agriculturist and having limit with the Op and has account No.80968800046377.  He further argued that the complainant has raised loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Op and has paid all the instalments.  He further argued that the complainant has paid Rs.2,30,000/- on 28.06.2014 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 25.06.2014.  He further argued that the Op has charged interest on exorbitant rate and now the Op has demanded Rs.2,24,487/-. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op argued that the complainant is defaulter of the bank and the rate of interest of the defaulter is also charged as per terms and conditions of RBI.  He further argued that the complainant after depositing the amount of Rs.2,30,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-, again withdraw the amount from his limit account.  He further argued that the complainant is in arrears of Rs.1,63,471/- till 09.11.2014 and Rs.55,171/- as interest at the rate of 13.05% and total amount becomes Rs.2,18,642/- till 30.09.2015.  

6.      From the pleadings, evidence of the parties and on appraisal of rival contentions of both the parties, it is clear that the present case relates to matter of accounts which could not be disposed off in a summary manner and required to be elaborate evidence.  In this regard, we can rely upon the authority reported as Milan Barot & others Vs. Mukesh Haridat Bhatt & others, 2011(2) CPC page 579, wherein it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that Housing services-Jurisdiction-Dispute relating to allotment delivery of possession and account settlement between the parties; House purchased with the help of loan amount-Possession of landlord was not offered despite receiving payment of its price-Certain complicated issues being involved dispute cannot be decided by Consumer Agencies-As it is “business to business” dispute, Civil Court alone is the proper Forum to adjudicate the matter.  In para No.11 and 12 of the said judgment, it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that:-

         “11.   Respectfully following the above ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the instant case the present dispute is a dispute between the two parties pertaining to settlement of account where a counter-claim has been advanced against the respondent/complainant by the Petitioner herein.  This matter is, therefore, to be adjudicated in a civil court and not in a consumer court since it is clearly a “business-to-business” dispute.

         12.    Keeping in view these facts, we do not intend to intervene any further in the matter.  The parties are at liberty to approach the civil court or any other appropriate forum in accordance with law for settlement of their dispute, if they so desire”. 

We can also rely upon the authority First Appeal No.1388 of 2008, The Haryana State Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd. Vs. Pawan Kumar (SCDRC, Haryana), wherein it has been held that the complainant instead of filing complaint before the District Forum should have approached the civil court for settlement of accounts with Ops.

         Keeping in view the above-said mentioned judgments and the facts of present case, we are of the considered view that the present case relates to matter of accounts and these judgments are fully applicable to the facts of instant case.  Hence, in our view, certain complicated issues being involved in this case which could not be disposed off in a summary manner and required to be elaborate evidence and the dispute cannot be decided by this Forum.   

7.      Thus, in view of above discussion, we disposed off the complaint accordingly.  However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court or any other appropriate forum having jurisdiction in accordance with law, if so desired and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.07.11.2016.

                                                                     (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                     President.

                 (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),

                        Member.           Member.