IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)



Date of decision: 04.08.2009
Appeal No.2009/234

(Arising from the order dated 23.02.2009 passed by District Forum(West) Janak Pur, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.509/2007)



Sh. Ashok Chhabra ... Appellant

M/s. Ashok Kumar Chhabra through Mr. R.K. Ghawana

Civil Engineers & Contractors advocate.

C/o A-279, Vikaspuri,

New Delhi.



Versus



Syndicate Bank ... Respondent

Punjabi Bagh Branch,

New Delhi.



CORAM:



Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President

Ms. Rumnita Mittal … Member





1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?



2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?



Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi , President(ORAL)



1. The appeal is being taken at the stage of admission. The appellant had filed a complaint before District Forum (West) under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, for release of amount of FDR bearing No.VCC No.12237 dated 25.10.1989 with interest @12% p.a. against the respondent Syndicate Bank, Punjabi Bagh Branch, New Delhi. The O.P. Syndicate Bank opposed the claim in its written statement and pleaded that the said FDR was also the subject matter in issue before Debts Recovery Tribunal in proceedings between the parties. All those facts need not be repeated here as can be looked into from the facts enumerated in the impugned order. O.P. further pleaded that the parties had arrived at a compromise before D.R.T. in proceedings between them on 16.03.2006 and the Bank had issued no liability certificate on 27.12.2006 and that the said FDR was adjusted towards the outstanding loan of the bank towards the complainant.

2. The District Forum after considering the contention of both the parties and going through the contents of the compromise order between the parties held that the complaint of the appellant was not sustainable and rejected the complaint of the appellant under order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with section 151 C.P.C..

3. That is what makes the appellant to come before this Appellate Forum in this appeal.

4. We have heard Sh. Rajeev Kumar Ghawana, learned counsel for the appellant at admission stage and have gone through the records before us. It appears that the said FDR was also the subject matter of the proceedings before the D.R.T. and at the time of entering into the compromise, the appellant was fully aware of it, therefore he cannot be allowed to say here in this different Forum subsequently that the said FDR was not adjusted towards the amount of loan which was subject matter before the D.R.T. The parties must be made to abide by the terms of the compromise and as such the appeal being devoid of merit is therefore dismissed in limine.

5. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

Announced today on 04th day of August, 2009.





(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi)

President





(Rumnita Mittal)

Member

Tri