FACTS
FACTSIn this case the petitioners had taken loan from the respondent-bank on two accounts, one for a sum of Rupees 1,50,000 and the other for Rupees 6,00,000. It would appear that the bank had distributed a sum of Rupees 1.47 lacs and the balance amount was not released to the petitioners.
It was their case, in the complaint laid before the District Forum, that due to deficiency in service, namely, failure to disburse the total amount contracted under the agreement , the petitioner could not carry on the business and discharge the obligations to pay the labour charges and, therefore, could not manufacture the products for which order had been served.
Since, there was a slump in the market, they could not discharge the contract for repayment.
Accordingly, they filed the complaint for damages claim a sum of Rupees 9,50,000.
JUDGMENT
The Tribunals below dismissed the case and the National Commission confirmed the dismissal on the complaint on three grounds. Firstly, the petitioner had not complied with the conditions of the agreement of repayment, thereby they committed breach of the contract. They cannot, therefore, complain of the deficiency of service. Another ground given was that the suit was filed by the bank for recovery on the premise that the Tribunal could not go into question. Thirdly, it was stated that in a letter addressed by the petitioners to the bank that they had admitted that the failure to pay the installments was due to slump in the market of the finished products and, therefore, they could not repay the loan.
On the above facts, the Apex Court observed:
“If pursuant to the contract the bank did not disburse the amount and if there was any resultant default in the payment on the account thereof, that may be a defence open to the petitioners in the suit and also furnishes right to complain of deficiency in service to seek redressal under the Consumer Protection Act. On that ground, the relief could not be rejected and the question was required to be gone into. Secondly, the mere filing of the suit for recovery of the amount may not be an absolute bar on the Commission to go into that question for the reason that the issue before the civil court is not the deficiency in the service unless that is specifically raised as a defence in the suit. Merely filing of the suit by the bank does not put a bar on the Tribunal to go into the merits in the complaint. On the other hand, we find force in the reasoning given by the Tribunal on the third point. It is the petitioner’s case that they were unable to produce the goods and have them marketed to pay back the loan in installments. It is admitted that due to slump in the market they could not sell the goods, realize the price of the finished product and payback the loan to the bank. That admission stands in their way to plead at the later stage that they suffered loss on account of the deficiency in service. Under those circumstances, we do not find any ground warranting interference.”
Merely filing of the suit by the bank does not put a bar on the Tribunal to go into the merits in the complaint.
By LawZ Bureau,