KARAM SINGH vs State Bank of India

-THE unsuccessful complainant appeals against the order of the District Forum, Karnalnon-suiting him on the threshold groundof non-maintainability with costs.

THE facts are somewhat unusual and lie in a narrow compass. THE appellant''s allegation in his complaint was that the respondent-State Bank of India had filed a Civil Suit against him for the recovery of Rs. 51,000/- in all which was pending trial. However the said bank had issued a letter-cum-notice dated the 28th of October, 1993 wherein it was mentioned that the above suit had been decreed against the complainant and as per terms of the decree the Court had ordered him to repay the amount of loan to the tune of Rs. 8241/- plus interest thereon in lumpsum/monthly/six monthly instalments upto the 15th of November, 1993. It was further mentioned that the amount should be repaid soon, failing which the bank would be constrained to put his land to auction as per the terms of the decree. Aggrieved by the said notice which was alleged to be highly derogatory and defamatory and labelling it as a misrepresentation of facts the complaint was instituted. The respondent-Bank in its reply took up the threshold preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable and the lis, if any, was not a consumer dispute at all. On merits, it was admitted that the bank had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 51,000/- in all alongwith accrued and future interest. The issue of the letter-cum-notice was tacitly admitted but it was pleaded that the same was done as a reminder and the notice being on a printed proforma there might have been an inadvertent error in ticking the proforma. The plea was that there was no malafide intention to misrepresent or terrorise the complainant.

The District Forum took the view that even the admitted facts did not give rise to any cause of action under Section 12 of the Act and holding the complaint as not maintainable, dismissed the same with costs.

MR. S.P. Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellant had first vehemently argued that the case came within the consumer jurisdiction and there was a patent deficiency in the banking services. Reliance was sought to be placed on Section 2(1 )(g) for contending that the scope of deficiency was very wide under the Act. Equally a grievance was made that the imposition of the costs on the consumer was unjustified and the appeal be entertained on that score alone. We are inclined to hold that one can not find any meaningful merit in the aforesaid submission. What first deserves highlighting is the fact that admittedly a civil suit is pending betwixt the parties before a Court of competent jurisdiction. It is now well settled within the consumer jurisdiction that when an identical or an allied cause of action is in seizing in the plenary Courts of law, then the redressal agencies under the Act must stay their hands. It is obvious that no parallel proceedings for virtually the same or connected cause of action should be permitted. It would be hardly appropriate that whilst the rights of the parties are yet under-trial before a Civil Court a collateral proceedings may be taken cognizance of by the consumer Fora. The District Forum was, therefore, not far wrong that if there was any remedy available to the complainant it is by way of a civil suit for damages against the bank or any relief in the pending proceedings already. On this larger issue as well the order of the District Forum must be upheld. This apart there also seems to be merit in its view that the somewhat curious allegations in the complaint would not clothe the appellant with the status of the consumer, despite the width of the definition of deficiency under the Act which was the main plank of the learned Counsel for the appellant.

EQUALLY we are unable to find merit in the appellant''s instance that the appeal be entertained on the issue of the imposition of costs. It is well settled both in the civil and the consumer jurisdiction that the costs are in the discretion of a Court and it is not easily possible to interfere with the exercise of such discretion in the Appellate jurisdiction. For the fore-going reasons, the appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.