Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/111/2023

Amar Singh S/o Mahinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

P.K. Sharma

18 Apr 2023

ORDER

     CC No. 111 of 2023

     Amar Singh vs. State Bank of India

 

Present:       Sh. PK Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.

 

ORDER:-   

1.                Brief facts of the case are, complainant had obtained loan in the sum of Rs.3 lacs from the opponent No.1 in the year 2016.

2.            By way of present complaint, complainant alleged his account became NPA and the opponent No.1 had issued letter dated 23.11.2020 for one time settlement and for this purpose, he deposited Rs.55,000/- with the opponent No.1 on 31.3.2021 and the complainant requested to withdraw all the litigation and to issue No Objection Certificate in his favour, instead of issuing of No Objection Certificate in his favour, opponent backed out from the one time settlement, which amounts to deficiency in service, on the part of opponent and constrained him to file the present complaint.

3.                In Para No.5 of the complaint, complainant himself admitted the institution of suit for recovery by the opponent against him, in a Civil Court at Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar. On 5.4.2023, he was asked through his counsel to produce on record, copy of plaint of said civil suit and he has placed the same on record on today. The remedy to invoke the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora is an additional remedy as envisaged under Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 but if the, issue brought before the Consumer Fora, between the same party involving the same question of law and fact has also been raised in competent forum such as Civil Court then, complaint before the Consumer Fora is not maintainable as there cannot be two judgment over the same issues by two different forums. Furthermore, in the present complaint, complainant has concealed the material facts from the Commission. The loan borrowed by the complainant from the opponent was not a simple loan, rather the complainant as a collateral security for repayment of the loan mortgaged his 8 canal 03 marla. Land situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Swabhari, H.B. No.253, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar, this fact has been transpired from the contents of the plaint placed on record by the complainant and once, loan is borrowed by the mortgaging an immovable property and in case, there is a any dispute raised between the parties then, complaint before the Consumer Fora is not maintainable but the complainant in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission, concealed this facts regarding mortgaging his land and thus, complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.

4.                Hence, due to reasons stated here-in-before, complaint is rejected being not maintainable before this Commission, leaving the complainant to bear the cost of litigation himself. File be consigned to the records.

 

                  L.Member                      Member                          President

DCDRC, YNR,

18.04.2023.

 

Typed by:- Aarti