COOLING INDUSTRIES vs State Bank of India

COMPLAINANT has claimed compensation for deficiency in banking service.

ALTHOUGH complaint has been filed in the trade name of the business, the Proprietor in reality is the complainant since, a trade name is not a person. Grievance of complainant is from the year 1980. Deficiency in service as alleged is that the bank and its officer (opposite parties) had given consent to him and the Orissa State Financial Corporation for release of sufficient working capital funds. But term loans were not granted as a result of which, complainant suffered loss.

Opposite parties have stated their case. They stated that as regards the loan advanced by opposite party-Bank to complainant and another industry in respect of which complainant is interested, suits have been filed in Civil Court for recovery of loans where question of deficiency in service could have been raised in those suits. Besides, volume of evidence both oral and documentary would be required to be adduced for proper adjudication and this redressal agency is not the proper forum for adjudication of such disputes on the basis of documents only. They have relied upon a decision of the National Commission reported in I (1991) CPJ 78 (NC)=1991 (1) CPR 52. (M/s. Special Machines v. Punjab National Bank and Others) which provides that the statute does not contemplate the determination of complicated issue offsets involving taking of elaborate oral evidence and adducing voluminous documentary evidence and a detailed scrutiny and assessment of such a case.

IN this case to come to a conclusion, each stage of loan transactions from the year 1980 to 1989 is to be examined, for each stage accounts are be examined, large number of documents are to be called for both from complainant as well as from opp. parties and Orissa State Financial Corporation and also from M/s. Rubi INdustries. Besides, records of suits registered as M.S. No. 217 of 1987, M.S. No. 218 of 1987 and M.S. No. 408 of 1987 are to be examined to consider the nature of pleadings and whether the questions as raised in this case could have been raised in the said suits. In the decision of the National Commission referred to above, it has been clearly stated that such disputes are not envisaged to be considered by the redressal agencies under the Act. In the decision of Andhra Pradesh State Commission reported in 1991 (1) CPR 378. (Sunkara Venkatadri v. A.P.S.E.B. rep. by the Supdt. Engineer, Ramagundam) that in cases where facts reveal that case requires an elaborate enquiring into the facts, summary jurisdiction under the Act should not be exercised. In 1991 (2) CPR 132. (M/s. K.M. Ahamed Koya & Sons v. M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd.), Tamilnadu State Commission took the same view relying upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh State Commission referred to earlier. When this Commission took a view that in case where elaborate enquiry is necessary and the matter is to be examined by the Civil Court, where witnesses may have to be examined and their examination may also be necessary, National Commission reversed the decision in its decision reported in II (1991) CPJ 202 (NC). in First Appeal No. 96 of 1990 decided on 5.9.1991 (S.K. Abdul Sukur v. State of Orissa and Others) stating that exhaustive powers having been given under the Act to the Redressal Agencies and they are to decide cases filed before them after taking such oral and documentary evidence as the circumstances in any given case may require. It observed as follows :- ".The statute thus clearly contemplates that the Redressal Forums constituted under it are to decide cases filed before them after taking such oral and documentary evidence as the circumstances of any given case may require. Unless a redressal forum constituted under the Act finds after careful scrutiny of the pleadings and the documents etc. relied on by the parties that a satisfactory adjudication of the matter cannot be conducted by it in proceedings under the Act because of the exceptionally complicated nature of the factual and legal issues involved, it will not be just or proper to decline to adjudicate upon a complaint filed by an aggrieved consumers.."

Earlier decision reported in 1991 (1) CPR 52 (supra) was distinguished by stating that the dispute therein was an exceptional case where transactions borrowing from banks extending over a long period of many years in different accounts were sought to be re-opened on allegations of fraud, mis-appropriation, manipulation of accounts, violation of banking norms etc.

AFTER hearing, learned Counsels for parties, we are inclined to hold that the present dispute comes within the category of principle laid down in 1991 (1) CPR 52 (supra). One aspect was not taken into consideration by the National Commission. A redressal agency constituted under the Act is required to adjudicate upon the dispute within a limited period as provided under the rules under the Act. Thus, such redressal agencies are not substitutes of Civil Court where no time limit is fixed for adjudication of a dispute. Thus, disputes requiring elaborate enquiry, lengthy examination and cross-examination are not envisaged to be entertained by the resressal agencies. It is to be remembered that for the entire District, there is only one District Forum. For the entire State, there is only one State Commission. In many districts and States regular forums and Commissions have not been constituted. District Judges and Judges of High Courts are appointed as the Presidents in addition to their own duties. If elaborate enquiry is taken up, there is every likelihood of delay in adjudication and object of the. legislation to grant speedy redressal would be frustrated. Therefore, in just cases where elaborate enquiry would be required for proper adjudication of a dispute, Commission may decline to entertain a dispute leaving parties to adjudicate the matter in properly constituted civil suits. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are not inclined to entertain this complaint accepting the preliminary objection of Opposite party-bank and reject the complaint petition without going into the merits of the case. There shall be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.