Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MRS. VISWALAKSHMI SASIDHARAN & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,SYNDICATE BANK, BELGAUM
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/02/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This Special Leave Petition arises from the order of
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
Delhi. The petitioners had loan taken from the respondent
Bank on two accounts, one for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and the
other for Rs. 3,00,000/-. It would appear that the Bank had
disbursed a sum of Rs 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 orders had been served. Since, there
was Since, there was slump in the market, they could not
discharge the contract for repayment. Accordingly, they
filed the complaint for damages in the sum of Rs.9.50,000/-.
The Tribunals below dismissed the case and the National
Commission confirmed the dismissal of the complaint on three
grounds. First, 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 that question.
Thirdly it was filed by the bank for recovery on the premise
that the Tribunal could not go into the question. Thirdly,
it was stated that in a letter addressed b the petitioners
to the Bank that they had admitted that the failure to pay
the instalments was due to slump in the market of the
finished products and, therefore, they could not repay the
loan.
Though we find that there is not much force in the
findings recorded by the courts below on the first tow
grounds, the last grounds merits acceptance. It pursuant to
the contract the Bank did not disburse the amount and if
there was any resultant default in the payment on 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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 that Civil
Court is not the deficiency in the service unless that is
specifically raised as defence in the suit. However, we
think that is one of defaults in the payment of the
instalments. Under those circumstances, merely filing of the
suit by the Bank does not put a bar on the Tribunal to go
into the merits in the complaint. Each case requires
examination on the facts of the case. On the other hand, we
find force in reasoning given by the Tribunal on 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 instalments. It was not the case that it was due to
deficiency in service. On the other hand, it is admitted
that due to slump in the market they could not sell the
goods, realise the price of the finished product and pay
back the loan to the Bank. That admission stands in their
way to plead at the late stage that they suffered loss on
account of the deficiency in service. Under those
circumstances, we do not find any ground warranting
interference.
The leave petition is dismissed.