This case record is taken up for consideration for passing order in respect of this M.A. case which has been filed by op bank authority of C.C. case no. 29 of 2024 wherefrom this M.A. case has been cropped up and this M.A. case has been filed by the op bank authority on the ground that this case is not maintainable as because on the self same matter and in between the self same parties one case was instituted and that has been decided by Hon’ble State Commission and after the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission both parties entered into a compromise and settled the disputes.

 This matter has been decided by the ops of this M.A. case who is the complainant of above noted C.C. case. The op of this M.A. case has filed W/O against the M.A. application.

It is the main point of contention and argument of the applicant of this M.A. case that the mother case being no. C.C. 29 of 2024 is not maintainable as the disputes involved and the said C.C. case have already been decided in C.C. case no. 365 of 2016 by the Hon’ble State Commission. It is also pointed out that the complainant of the above noted C.C. case is not coming under the definition of consumer as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

On the other hand, the op of this M.A. case has been contesting this case by filing W/O. The main point of contention and argument of the op of this M.A. case is that as per point no. 9 of the compromise  proposal dt. 23.9.2022 the op bank authority had given the undertaking to reflect the details of CIBIL Database also to issue no due certificate in favour of the complainant. It is also pointed out that the op issued no due certificate on 16.1.2023, CIBIL Score has not been modified and it does not reflect the appropriately in respect of the database of complainant  for which the complainant has facing difficulties to get future loan and also facing financial loss.

For the purpose of arriving at just and proper  decision in respect of the disputes highlighted by the parties of this case there is urgent necessity of making scrutiny of the materials of this case record. After going through the materials of this case record this District Commission finds that before filing of the C.C. case no. 29 of 2024 the complainant instituted the C.C. case no. 365 of 2016 which was finally decided by the Hon’ble State Commission. It is also reflected that the parties of C.C. case no. 29 of 2024 and of C.C. case no. 365 of 2016 are same. It is also revealed that the C.C. Case no. 29 of 2024 is the ofsuit of C.C. case no. 365 of 2016. It is admitted position that both parties settled the disputes by way of compromise. It is also admitted fact that the assets of the complainant has been declared non performing asset by op bank authority. That factor of declaring the assets of the complainant as non performing asset of the complainant has not been challenged by the complainant side who is the op of this M.A. case before the Higher Forum. When the assets of the complainant have been declared NPA by op bank authority there is no scope to modify the CIBIL Score of the complainant in the database.

When the disputes of this present C.C. case no. 29 of 2024 has already been settled in the previous complaint case no. 365 of 2016 by the Hon’ble State Commission, this District Commission is of the view that this present C.C. case no. 29 of 2024 is not maintainable in  its present form and in the eye of law and it is barred by the principle of res judicata.

A cumulative consideration of the above noted discretion goes to show that the applicant of M.A. case no. 34 of 2024 who is the op bank authority of C.C. case no. 29 of 2024 has proved his M.A. case and so it is allowed on contest. It is held that the C.C. case no. 29 of 2024 is not maintainable in the eye of law and so it is liable to be dismissed.

In the light of the observation made above this M.A. case no. 34 of 2024 is disposed of.

Let this case record be tagged with the C.C. case no. 29 of 2024.