DIGVIJAY TEXTILE MILLS vs State Bank of India

AGAINST the order dated 7.5.92 of the dismissal of the complaint passed by the District Forum, Pali in an unregistered complaint, the unsuccessful complainant has filed the appeal. Shorn off unnecessary details the material facts are that the complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party praying that the opposite party may be directed to deliver the patta of the house to the complainant. It was alleged by the complainant that no amount is outstanding against him and despite several requests the patta was not returned to him. The complaint was presented on 6.5.92. He was present before the District Forum on that date. The District Forum without issuing any notice to the opposite party held that the complaint is not maintainable as the complaint relates to business dealings. Para 2 of the complaint reads as follows : - "YEH HAI KI GARSAYAL NA SAYAL KARM KO, JO CONSUMER HAI, KO APNI BANK DWARA C.C. LIMIT KI SUVIDHA AVAM P.B.(PAYMENT AGAINST BALANCE) SUVIDHA DI. SAYAL SHRA KANTTILAL NAI APNA MAKAN KA PTTA UPROKT SUVIDHA DANA KA AVEJ MAI PATTA (PRLAJ) GIRVI BANK GAAR SAYAL KA PAS RAKHA."

AGAINST the order dismissing the complaint, as stated above, this appeal has been filed. Record was sent for. We heard Mr. Ashok Modi, learned Counsel for the complainant-appellant and Mr. S.K. Soni, learned Counsel for the opposite party-respondent and carefully perused the complaint and the order under appeal. Apart from the fact that averments with regard to money dealings between the complainant and opposite party have been made, it is further clear that the relationship between the complainant and opposite party was that of pledge or and pledge or creditor and debtor and no complaint during the existence of such relationship is maintainable. In addition to this it needs to be mentioned that the case of the complainant as set up in the complaint is about the deficiency in service of the opposite party-respondent. A prayer has been made that direction may be issued to the opposite party-respondent for delivering that patta of the complainant to him. It is well settled that a Redressal Forum established under the Act can grant only these reliefs which have been mentioned in Section 14(1) of the Act and not beyond that. The reliefs prayed for by the complainant are not covered by Section 14(1) of the Act. See 1991 CSMR CAS 33 and 1991 CSMR 45. In Social Welfare (Housing) (India) Ltd. v. Anil Kuma Moltey (First Appeal No. 76/91 decided on 7.12.1992 the apex Redressal Forum has ruled that a consumer who has suffered loss or injury on account of any deficiency in service barring aside the relief of compensation, no other relief can be granted. This concludes the point raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. No valid exception can be taken to the order passed by the District Forum, when it held that the complaint is not maintainable. The order dated 7.5.92 dismissing the complaint is affirmed.

The appeal is devoid of force. It is consequently dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal. Appeal dismissed.