NITYA NAND vs Haryana Financial Corporation

THE unsuccessful complainant appeals against the order of the District Forum, Narnaul relegating him to his ordinary remedy to the Civil Court because there were complex questions of law and facts arising from the complaint.

SINCE we are firmly inclined to confirm the order under appeal, it is unnecessary to delve too deeply into the facts and merits in this judgment of affirmance. It suffices to mention that the complainant-appellant had taken a sizeable loan of Rs. 3,37,500/- from the Haryana Financial Corporation. It was the case that the rate of interest thereof was 12.5% and subsequently he had repaid a sum of Rs.1,89,008/- in all on different dates. The case set-up was that in the loan docurnent the rate of interest could vary from time to time and that the respondents had the discretion to charge enhanced rate of interest from the appellant. On the 28th of December, 1992 the respondents required the complainant to pay a penal rate of interest at the rate of 16% with a further stipulation that it could be enhanced in future and later a demand to pay interest at the rate of 20% from 25th of March, 1991 was made. It was also the case that the appellant was compelled to deposit Rs. 30,000/- by 11th of March, 1993 which had been done under protest. The relief claimed was that the respondents be directed not to charge interest at more than 12% and to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000''- only.

In stoutly resisting the complaint the respondents took up the plea that the loan facility was granted at the interest rate of 16% per annum which could be raised by 5% per annum over and above the prevailing bank rate for the time being at the discretion of the Corporation. Intricate provisions with regard to the determination of interest were relied upon as resting on the date of refinance becoming available from the Industrial Development Bank of India, as per the deed of hypothecation executed between the appellant and the respondents on the 25th of March, 1991. It was the case that the appellant had admitted vide hypothecation deed dated 25th of March, 1991 that the rate of interest would be 16% which may be raised upto 5% per a nnum over and above the prevailing bank rate, if certain conditions were to be satisfied. The stand was that in the transport cases refinance from the I.D.B.I, was sanctioned at the rate of 17% per annum, therefore, the respondent-Corporation will be entitled to charge interest at the rate of 20% per annum from the appellant. Apart from the pleadings on merits, preliminary objection was also taken that the appellant was not a consumer.

THE District Forum formally struck the issue on the point whether the appellant was a consumer. THE complainant did not choose to lead any evidence whilst the respondents examined RW1 H.P. Saini, the Manager of the Haryana Financial Corporation, Branch Office, Narnaul in support of their case. The District Forum held in favour of the appellant that he came within the ambit of the definition of a consumer. However after referring to Ex. Rl copy of the hypothecation deed admittedly executed betwixt the parties and quoting the same in extenso it came to the conclusion that the complicated issue of facts and law would arise in the final adjudication of the complaint and relying in Janta Machine Tools v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, I (1991) CPJ 508 (NC)=1992 (1) SLJ. 988, the appellant was non-suited as noticed at the outset.

MR. M.L. Saini, the learned Counsel for the appellant had contended that the District Forum having held the appellant as a consumer was thereafter bound to decide the complaint on merits what-ever be the nature of its complexity. It was the submission that the order of the District Forum was a contradiction in terms. We are afraid that there is no merit in the submission aforesaid. The issue whether the complainant is a consumer and whether he should be relegated to the Civil Court are things apart and findings in favour of the appellant did not necessarily involve a right to secure adjudication within the summary consumer jurisdiction of the tangled issues of the varing terms of the finance extended out to the appellant and the payment and repayment of the amounts which would have even involved examination of accounts books. The District Forum had noticed the terms of the hypothecation-deed which provided for intricate contingencies for determining the rate of interest governing the refinance available from the I.D.B.I. to the respondent-Corporation. In an order of affirmance it is not necessary to tread out the same ground again and it suffices to mention that we agree with the view taken by the District Forum. Even otherwise this Commission is of the view that a complaint involving complex questions of facts is not easy of adjudication in the summary jurisdiction, an exercise of discretion by the District Forum is not to be easily disturbed. Apart from the above, it is well to recall the authoritative mandate of the National Commission in M/s. Special Machines, Karnal v. Punjab National Bank & Others, I (1991) CPJ. 78 (NC). Wherein it was observed as follows :- " It is no doubt true that the Forums constituted under the Act are vested with the power to examine witnesses on oath and to order discovery and production of documents. But such power is to be exercised in cases where the issues involved are simple such as the defective quality of any goods purchased or any shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of a service which the respondent has contracted to perform for consideration. Even in such cases, if it appears to the concerned Forum under the Act that the issues raised cannot be determined without taking elaborate oral and documentary evidence it is open to it to decline to exercise jurisdiction and refer the party to his ordinary remedy by way of suit."

The aforesaid ratio is in all fours and virtually concludes the issue against the appellant.

FOR the fore-going reasons this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed. However, without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed without costs.