NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 179 OF 2003 (From the order dated 14.3.2002 in complaint No.156/01 of the State Commission Maharashtra) M/s. Ceenar Apparels Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Central Bank of India Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, PRESIDENT MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER. MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER. Jurisdiction: Abuse of the process of the Act for a claim of Rs.33,109 the amount claimed in the complaint Rs.14,41,383/- - claim also held barred by limitation also suit filed by the bank decreed for Rs.1,86,38,817.57 appeal dismissed. For the appellant : Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. Pradeep Trehan, Advocate. O R D E R
DATED THE 22nd August, 2003
JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J.(PRESIDENT)
Appellant was the
complainant in the Maharashtra State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. By the impugned order, State Commission dismissed the complaint
on the ground that the Central Bank of India, the respondent-Bank had already filed a suit against the
complainant before Debt Recovery Tribunal
before filing of the complaint and that the said suit had since been decreed in the year 1999. State Commission recorded that this fact when put to the employee of the
complainant was confirmed by him. State
Commission was, therefore, of the view that filing of the complaint subsequent
to the decreeing of the suit before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, could not be
maintainable and without referring to the merits or demerits of the claim,
dismissed the complaint. There was no order as to costs.
It is contended by Mr.
Dhingra, learned counsel for the appellant that there was no suit as such
against the complainant filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal by the Bank and by the impugned order which was
made post haste, complaint was dismissed.
He said complainant was a company
registered under the Companies Act and had a separate entity than M/s. Janta Menswear of whose N. Devdasan was the proprietor. This
very N. Devdasan is the Managing Director
of the complainant as well. We may note that we are separately deciding
4 appeals filed in the name of N. Devdasan, sole proprietor of Janta Menswear and these appeals have also arisen out of the
common order of the State Commission dismissing the complaints.
In those complaints,
however, it is the admitted case that in the suit filed by the Bank against
Janta Menswear, decree for a sum of
Rs.1.86,38,817.57 was passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and a writ petition
filed against that order in the Bombay High Court was dismissed.
This appeal is barred by
limitation. The impugned order of the
State Commission is dated 14.3.2002 and
a copy of the order as per rules was sent
to the appellant on 4.6.2002.
This appeal came to be filed on 28.2.2003. There is no cause much less sufficient cause to condone the
delay. We cannot accept the submission
of the complainant that the endorsement on the certified copy of the order of
the State Commission to the effect that copy of the impugned order was sent on
4.6.2002 should not be believed.
Moreover, we find that the complaint itself was barred by
limitation. Mr. Dhingra was hard put to explain as to how it could be said that the
complaint was within the period of limitation.
Though he said that there was a
continuing cause of action, let us see how the claim of Rs.14,31,383.00 has been made in the complaint. This is as under:
(1) Excess amount paid by the complainant as on
2.9.1995 Rs. 33,109.00
(2)
Interest of about 5-1/2 Years on the
said amount of
Rs.33,109/- @ 18% per annum Rs.
32,779.00
(3) Excess amount paid by the complainant as
on 16.1.96 Rs.
1,56,088.00
(4) Interest of about 4-1/2 Years on the said
amount of
Rs.1,56,088/- @ 18% per annum Rs.
1,19,407.00
(5)
Turn Over loss on the sum of Rs.40
Lakhs
at the Rate of 15% Rs.
6,00,000.00
(6)
Mental agony, damages and other losses
suffered
By the complainant and its Directors, Members Etc.
Rs. 5,00,000.00
________________
TOTAL Rs.
14,41,383.00
_______________
It
would be seen that for a sum of
Rs.33,109/- which according to the
complainant was collected in excess by the Bank, he arrived at figure of
Rs.14.41 lakhs which includes interest and
alleged damages, mental agony
etc. It is difficult to appreciate as
to how it could be said that there was
any continuing cause of action. We
find a complaint like this is abuse of
the process of the Consumer Protection Act and was rightly dismissed by the
State Commission though on different
ground. This appeal has no merit and it
is dismissed with cost counsel fee of Rs.2000/-.
J
(D.P.
WADHWA)
PRESIDENT
.
(RAJYALAKSHMI
RAO)
MEMBER
(B.K.
TAIMNI)
MEMBER