Complainant:

S.V. Rajashekaraiah
Aged about 50 years
S/o Sri. Veerabadrachar
No.2972, 13th Main, Attiguppe
R.P.C.Layout, Vijayanagar
Bangalore- 560 040



/vs/



Opposite Parties:

1.M/s. India Bulls Financial
Services Ltd.,
“India Bulls House”
No.448-451, Udyog Vihar
Phase-V, Gurgoan-122 001
R/by its Managing Director
(Personal Loan Department)

2.M/s. India Bulls Credit Services Ltd.,
No.3080, 6th Main
Opp. ESI Quarters
HAL 2nd Stage
Bangalore- 560 008
R/by its Branch Manager
(Personal Loan Department)

O R D E R



SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party (Op in short) for the refund of an amount of Rs.18,093/- with damages of Rs.20,000/-, costs and for such other reliefs.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had approached the Op for availing personal loan and had obtained the loan a sum of Rs.27,000/- as per their sanctioned letter dated 8/8/2006, the OP has sanctioned the personal loan and for the security and prompt payment they have collected loan documents by way of cheques and other documents from the complainant and finally they have issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.25,485/- after deducting the processing charges and service tax. While sanctioning of loan to the complainant, the branch office of the Op was at Rajajinagar, Bangalore. The OP as per the agreement has collected the loan amount from the banker of the complainant i.e Union Bank of India through ECS service, accordingly and as per the procedure stated above the Op has been recovering the loan amount from the complainant regularly, the complainant was very prompt in making the loan installments.

In the month of August 2007, the complainant had approached the Op to clear the entire amount due by making all arrangements in a single installment, the OP has agreed for the same and had collected the amount a sum of Rs.21,500/- as full and final settlement. While discharging the loan amount the Rajajinagar branch was merged with the Vasanthnagar branch, and the complaint has make the payments therein. The OP at the time of collecting the entire amount they have issued an extract showing the balance amount and the amount offered for full and final settlement. The Op has assured and promised to issue the full and final settlement certificate on 02/09/2007, though the Op has assured to issue the full and final settlement certificate they have not issued the same on 02/09/2007 in spite of repeated approach and request. The effort made was futile.

It is shock and surprise to the complainant that, even after clearing off all the dues, in a single payment, as per receipt dated 01/09/2007 they have continue to collect the installment amount through ECS mode from the bank of the complainant, the said fact came to the notice of the complaint when he approached the bank, in the month of January 2008 for drawing the amount in his account. Immediately, he had approached the Op and intimated about the facts and circumstances happening and continuously contacted and requested the Op over Telephone 080-41509001/2/3/4/5, and also to one Mr. Nityananda who is the holder of mobile No.9902611544 and the authorized person to reimburse the amount collected and also to return the documents collected, they have postpone to comply the demands of the complainant on one or the other pretext and in the mean time the Op No.1 has caused a notice demanding to pay the amount a sum of Rs.4,090/-, even though the complaint has not due any amount, as detailed above.

The complainant after receipt of the said notice dated 12/05/2008, has contacted the OP to settle the issue, they failed and neglected to settle the matter. The complaint had bought the said fact to the knowledge of the OP by placing the extract of the complaint banker, the Extract of the complaint banker showing the amount collected in excess by the Op even after cleaning of the entire amount as per the receipt issued by them. When the Op has failed to comply the demands, the complainant had filed to comply the demands, the complainant had filed a complaint in C.No.1290/2008 on the file of the 3rd Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and Bangalore, the complainant filed was allowed as per dated 26/11/2008. During the pendency of the complaint, the OP No.1 had a caused legal notice through their advocate calling upon the complainant to pay the amount a sum of Rs.18,634/- has been reached to the complaint during the pendency of the complaint, and the same has been replied suitably by bringing all the facts to the notice of the OP, though they have received the reply again they have collected a sum of Rs.18,093/- through ECS service on 02/07/2008, even though the complaint has not liable to pay any of the amount, the amount recovered is entirely a different amount from the claim made in the earlier complaint. Again the Ops have committed mistake by recovering the additional amount a sum of Rs.18,093 through ECS on 02/07/2008, and they are liable to return the same with cost and interest. Due to the act of the Ops, the complaint has incurred heavy financial loss. The complainant has caused legal notice 4/7/2008 bringing all the facts to the notice of the Ops, but they have not responded any thing. Hence the complainant approached this forum.

Notices were sent to the Ops for their appearance and version even though, the notice was served on them, they remained absent and no one represented them. Hence both Ops placed ex-parte. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for complainant.

The complainant had filed one complaint No.1290/08 before 3rd Additional District Forum, Bangalore for recovery of excess amount after closing the loan amount. The same was allowed on 26/11/2008. During pendency of the said complaint again the Ops collected excess amount of Rs.18,093/- through ECS inspite of protest made by the complainant. As the said transaction was not the subject matter of the earlier complaint, the present complaint is filed before this forum.

When the earlier excess collection was allowed by one forum again Ops have continued their collection inspite of pending of the earlier complaint. This shows not only the deficiency of service of the Ops but also the arrogant nature of the Ops.

These facts have not been specifically denied by the Ops, inspite of sufficient opportunities given to them they remained absent and failed to submit their statement of objection. In the absence of specific denial by the Ops, the evidence given by the complainant is unchallenged.

In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Accordingly, we pass the following order.

O R D E R

Complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable.

Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to refund an amount of Rs.18,093/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Ninety Three only) with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of respective deposits to till the date of realization including the cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only).

In addition, the Opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation and all these amounts are to be paid to the complainant withinsix weeks from the date of this order.

Alok Kumar Singh, S/o. Vinod Kumar Singh, age 20 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Q.No.SC 2-265, 8 Incline, Godavarikhani of Ramagundum mandal of Karimnagar district.

…Complainant

1. The Indiabulls Security Limited, R/by It’s Managing Director, Door No. F-60, Malhotra Building, II Floor, Cannaught Place, New Delhi.

2. Ajit Kumar Singh, S/o. Hariram Singh, Age 28 years, Occ: Agents of the O.P.No.1 at present working in Shares Business, R/o. Jhansi

Castle, II Floor, 7 Cooprage Road, Colaba Mumbai-59.

1. This complaint is filed under sec 12 of C.P. Act 1986 seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,03,400/- towards refund of the amount invested by him along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.3,000/- towards costs of the complaint.



2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the opposite party no.2 is the agent of opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 is dealing in shares and an organization of highly professional persons involved in the business of shares and stocks. The opposite party no.2 being the agent of opposite party no.1 approached the complainant at Godavarikhani requesting him to join as a member in the opposite party no.1 company so that he can get huge profits and he can also manage the dealings of shares at his place. At that time the opposite party no.2 produced several broachers showing that the opposite party no.1 company is running with high profits. Having been induced by him the complainant became member of the opposite party no.1 and his signatures were obtained on several blank forms promising to fill up them later. Towards his share of investment the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- through Demand Draft bearing D.D.No.888506 for Rs.50,000/-, DD No.888512 for Rs.25,000/- and DD No.888513 for Rs.25,000/- Dt: 29.5.2006 which were sent to the opposite party no.1 through courier service. It is submitted that there was no information from the opposite party no.1 regarding share trading and the particulars of business done by them and further they did not send any PIN No. to the complainant.

Therefore, the complainant contacted opposite party no.1 about non-receipt of the Pin Code and also about the trading details. After considerable time the opposite party no.1 sent statement for the June 2006 showing that the opposite party no.1 made several transactions. Further, the said statement discloses that the amount of Rs.25,000/- made by him through DD No.888512 is not entered towards his investment, on which the complainant made enquiry and came to know that the opposite party no.1 encashed all the 3 Demand Drafts. The statement also reveals that the transactions shows losses and highly speculative. Immediately the complainant informed the opposite party no.1 to stop further transactions on his behalf and requested them to refund the investment made by him, inspite of it the opposite party no.1, continued trading on his behalf and did not return the amount paid by him.

When the complainant talked to the opposite party no.1 regarding losses they assured that the amount will be returned and after several days the opposite party no.1 sent Rs.3,000/- and Rs.6,000/- to the complainant. Therefore, the opposite parties failed to pay any more amount. Thereafter the complainant got issued a Legal Notice Dt: 17.1.2007 calling upon the opposite party no.1 to refund the amount paid by him, but there is no reply. The complainant submits that the opposite parties have induced him to become member and delt with share transactions without his consent showing losses. The complainant claimed an amount of Rs.1,03,400/-consisting of Rs.75,000/- towards principal amount, Rs.28,400/- towards interest thereon, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. The complainant submits as the opposite parties failed to pay the said amount it amounts to deficiency of service.



3. The opposite party no.2 remained exparte. The opposite party no.1 filed counter contending that the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation as there is delay in filing the same. Further, the complainant does not come within the definition of consumer as defined in Sec 2(1) (d) of C.P. Act and the dispute raised in the case does not come within the purview of a consumer dispute as the complainant was engaged in the trading of shares which involves speculative transactions. The opposite party no.1 further submits that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the complainant and opposite party no.1, this FORUM has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the registered office of the company is the place of jurisdiction for filing the complaint.

The opposite party no.1 denies all the contents of the complaint. It is submitted that the opposite party no.1 company is a registered capital market intermediary dealing in buying and selling of shares and it is registered with NSE and the opposite party no.1 is doing business covered under securities and Exchange Board of India Act. As per the provisions of said Act if there is any dispute between opposite party no.1 and its members it has to be referred to the Arbitration, Grievances Cell and Ombudsman only. The complainant became member of opposite party no.1 and engaged in trading of shares through NSE and he has entered into Member Constituent Agreement and the complainant executed the same after fully proving the terms and conditions of the said agreement. As the complainant engaged in trading of shares with speculative business he has sustained losses. The complainant himself became member of opposite party no.1 to trade business in sale of shares and he continued the same due to which he sustained losses.

The complainant paid Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- which were credited to his account on 8.6.2006. The complainant did not pay Rs.25,000/- but the DD for Rs.25,000/- was received by opposite party no.1 from opposite party no.2 and the said amount was credited to the account of opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that the complainant has withdrawn Rs.30,000/- and Rs.6,084.68 paise from his trading account without any protest. The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Further the complainant became member of share trading company and he is liable to bear profits and losses for the business done by him. After having done some business in trading of shares sustained losses, he can't ask for refund of the amount paid by him. Therefore, opposite party no.1 prayed for dismiss of the complaint.



4. The complainant filed his Proof Affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint and filed documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A39. Ex.A1 is the Legal Notice Dt: 17.1.2007 issued to opposite parties. Ex.A2 to A4 are Bank vouchers issued by State Bank of Jallaram Branch. Ex.A5 is the DTDC Courier receipt Dt: 29.5.2006. Ex.A6 & A7 are postal receipts. Ex.A8 is the copy of Customer Grievance Handling System-Settled Report Preview Dt: 20.3.2007. Ex.A9 to A15 are the Contract Notes showing the transactions of complainant issued by Members Acting for Constituents as Brokers and Agents. Ex.A16 to A39 are Contract Notes issued by Members Acting for Constituents as Brokers and Agents showing the Net Payable Amount.



5. The opposite party no.1 filed the Proof Affidavit of its Asst. Manager in support of their case reiterating the averments made in the counter and filed the Member Constituent Agreement (in 8 pages) which is marked as Ex.B1.



6. The points for consideration are:

(1) Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined under the provisions of C.P. Act 1986?

(2) Whether this FORUM has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

(3) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation as contended by opposite party no.1?

(4) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, if so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?



7. Both the parties have filed written arguments in support of their respective claims.

POINT NO.1 and NO.2: As per the contents of the complaint and affidavit of the complainant he himself stated that he became member of the opposite party no.1 company who is dealing in shares and organization of highly professional persons who totally involved in the business of share and stocks. It is further mentioned that the complainant perused the past profits secured by the company and promised to get high profits by dealing in the shares on behalf of the complainant. A perusal of documentary evidence under Ex.A9 to A39 which are Contract Notes issued by the members acting for constituents as Brokers and Agents of opposite party no.1 discloses the various transactions made by the complainant as a Stock Broker delt in purchasing and sale of shares and securities.

The Legal Notice got issued by the complainant under Ex.A1 Dt: 17.1.2007 also discloses that he became member of opposite party no.1 company to deal with the sale of shares and securities. It is contended by opposite party that the complainant joined as a member of their company to act as Share Broker for which he was given agent code. At the time of joining he has executed Member-Constituent Agreement under Ex.A4 which discloses that the complainant is a Shares Broker under opposite party no.1 permitted to deal in the purchase and sale of shares and securities. After having become member the complainant did business deriving profits in it. Share business is a speculative business involving risk factor and as and when profits were derived the complainant received them also. A perusal of the documentary evidence filed by the complainant and Membership Agreement under Ex.B1 clearly established that the complainant joined as a Member of opposite party no.1 to deal with purchase and sale of shares for which he has invested Rs.1,00,000/- with opposite party no.1 as per the terms and conditions of Membership Agreement. When the complainant joined as a member with opposite party no.1, to do business and infurtherence of it he did business as evidenced in statements under Ex.A9 to Ex.A39, he is not a consumer as defined under Sec 2 (1) (d) of C.P. Act 1986. The complainant did not avail any services from the opposite parties, but did business along with them expecting profits. It is not the case of the complainant that he has deposited amounts with opposite party no.1 under some deposit scheme. When the complainant is not a consumer he can't approach the Consumer Forum under C.P. Act, 1986 for refund of the investment made by him. Hence it is held that the complainant is not a consumer and this FORUM has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

POINT NO.3: The opposite party no.1 contended that the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation. A perusal of the case file discloses that the complaint was filed on 31.12.2007. The complainant sent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- through 3 Demand Drafts Dt: 29.5.2006. Therefore, if the starting point of cause of action for filing complaint is taken as 29.5.2006, the complainant can file his complaint within a period of 2 years under the provisions of C.P. Act Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint within 2 years from the date of his investment with opposite party no.1. Hence, we hold that the complaint is filed within limitation.

POINT NO.4: The complainant filed this complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,16,400/- comprising of Rs.1,03,400/- towards refund of amount invested by him interest, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards costs of the complaint on the ground that the opposite parties committed deficiency of service. A perusal of the Membership Agreement and other documentary evidence filed by the complainant, it is disclosed that there were no purchase of shares ‘or’ investment of amounts in fixed deposits with opposite parties. But as per his own case the complainant pleaded that he joined as a member of the opposite party company for dealing in the sale of shares and securities. Whatever the profits that were secured by him during course of his business the complainant received an amount of Rs.9,000/- in two investments. As the complainant involved in share business for considerable period wherein he sustained some losses, therefore, he can't ask the opposite party no.1 for refund of the amounts invested by him for the said business which is a speculative one. Therefore, we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. In view of the said reasons we hold that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

If u take an personal loan in this bulls, then u have to pay twice wat u had taken and if u dont pay a month. then u have to face lot of prblms like some rogues wil call and irritake u.

pls be careful b4 u take loan in this.

Devi Ram resident of Sh. Village and Post Office Baldwara, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P.



… Complainant



Vs

1. Managing Director , Indiabulls House 448-451 Phase -5 ( opposite D. L.F. Tower) Gurgaon, Haryana.

2. Idiabulls Financial Services Ltd Registered Office F-60 2nd floor Malhotra Building New Delhi-1.

3. Sanjeev Saini ,Branch Manager, Indiabulls Credits Service Ltd Goma Niwas Lower Chakker Shimla , H.P.

.. Opposite parties.



Order



This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “ Act” )instituted by the complainant against the opposite parties. The complainant averred that he being simpleton and innocent villager is having no source of income and in the year 2006 planned to take the vehicle to earn his livelihood . The complainant was contacted by the opposite parties and persuaded him to take loan from them by misrepresenting the facts That on persuasion of the agent of the opposite parties , loan has been taken by the complainant for the purchase of vehicle bearing No. HP-33-8552 which was financed by the opposite parties .


The officials of the opposite parties obtained signatures of the complainant on so many papers without making the complainant understand the contents of the same and taken 35 cheques as a security from the complainant. The opposite parties had financed Rs.2,60,842/- and the same was to be returned back in 35 equal instalments of Rs.10,521/-. First instalment of Rs.10521/- had been deducted by the opposite parties from the loan amount . The complainant alleged that he was regular in paying the instalments to the office bearer i.e. opposite party No.3 and one Sh.Rajeev Kumar collection agent of Baldwara branch of opposite parties which had now been closed.


The complainant further alleged that he has deposited whole loan amount on 11-10-2007 with the opposite party No.3 and Sh.Rajeev Kumar and applied for no objection certificate and he was assured to issue the same within one month . The complainant approached time and again the opposite party No.3 and Sh. Rajeev Kumar for issuance of no objection certificate but instead of issuing the same, they demanded more amount on the ground that the complainant was defaulter which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice . The complainant further averred that the opposite parties illegally and unlawfully harassed the complainant by not issuing the no objection certificate .


The complainant further alleged that the opposite parties had not maintained the statement of account as the first installment was received in advance but the same has not been credited in the account and over dues for it has been charged wrongly. The complainant further averred that at the time of the execution of the agreement cheques were supplied to the opposite parties so that in case of any default in cash payment of instalment ,the payment could be realized by the opposite parties by encashing the cheques but they have not used the cheques to show that there was default and no notice to the owner as well as to the guarantor has been issued with regard to the default and they are ignoring the law of land .


The opposite parties were served with legal notice but the same was not responded . With these allegations the complainant had sought a direction to the opposite parties to issue No objection certificate to him with respect to the vehicle in question , to issue statement of accounts , to pay Rs.50,000.- as compensation , to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs It has also been prayed that the opposite party be restrained from causing any obstruction in plying the vehicle , and a prayer to return the cheques to avoid any misuse of them .

2 The opposite parties contested the complaint and raised preliminary objections that the Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint , that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant has no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint as the vehicle in question is being used for commercial purpose , that the complainant is not a consumer , that complicated question of facts require detailed evidence for which the civil court has the jurisdiction , that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party.


On merits , the opposite parties have pleaded that the complainant had approached the opposite parties to obtain the loan for the purchase of the vehicle . It has been denied that the opposite parties have persuaded the complainant to take the loan . It has been admitted that the loan of Rs..2,60,842/- alongwith interest at the rate of 11.4 per annum was granted against the vehicle No HP-33-8552 in favour of the complainant . It has been averred that before entering into the loan agreement , the complainant had been explained in length about the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. It has further been averred that the total agreement value was assessed at Rs. 3,67,657/- i.e.( Rs.2,60,842 + Rs.1,06,815) which was to be repayable in 35monthly installments .


It has been averred that the complainant has made number of defaults in the payment of the monthly instalments and till date the complainant has made the payment of Rs.2,63,520/- and is in default of Rs.1,00,195,97 paise It has been denied that the complainant was regular in making the payment of the instalments . It has further been averred that the opposite parties had to recover the payment of defaulted / outstanding amount in the sum of Rs.1,00,195.97paise and the no objection certificate will be issued to the complainant on payment of outstanding / defaulted amount as mentioned above ..Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied . The opposite parties had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3 The complainant filed rejoinder reiterating the contents of the complaint and controverted the allegations made in the reply

4. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the entire record .The case of the complainant is that the amount financed by the opposite parties was Rs.2,60,842/- which amount was to be paid in 35 monthly instalments in the sum of Rs.10521/- each. According to the complainant , first instalment of Rs.10521/- was taken by the opposite parties by deducting the same from loan amount and thereafter the complainant was paying the loan instalments to the office bearers of the opposite parties namely Sh. Sanjiv Kapoor , the opposite party No.3 and one Sh.Rajeev Kumar Collection Agent of branch Baldwara of the opposite parties .


The further case of the complainant is that he had deposited whole loan amount on 11-10-2007 and applied for no objection certificate but till date the same has not been delivered to him .On the other hand , the case of the opposite parties is that they have sanctioned the loan of Rs.2,60,842/- alongwith interest at the rate of 11.04% per annum vide loan agreement dated 28-11-2006 and the total agreement value was Rs. 3,67,657( RS.2,60,842/- + 1,06,815/-) which amount was to be repayable by the complainant in 35 monthly instalments.


The first instalment was of Rs.10,521/- and remaining 34 instalments were of Rs.10504/- each . The further case of the opposite parties is that right from the execution of the loan agreement the complainant had made number of defaults in the payment of the monthly instalments and till date the complainant had made payment of Rs. 2,63,520/- and he is in default of Rs.1,00,195.97 paise .The opposite parties had also placed on record the loan agreement and statement of accounts.

5 The perusal of the record revealed that according to the complainant , the amount of.Rs.2,60,842/- was repayable whereas according to the opposite parties an amount of Rs.3,67,657( Rs.2,60,842/- + Rs.1,06,815/-) is repayable by the complainant. According to the



complainant he had paid whole of the amount on 11-10-2007 whereas the opposite party had admitted that the complainant had made payment of Rs..2,63,520/-and he is in default of Rs.1,00,195.97 paise.The complainant has not placed on record original receipts but has filed only photocopy of some receipts Annexure C-1 to C-4 issued by the opposite parties and he had further placed on record photocopy of vouchers Annexure C-6 whereby various amounts have been deposited on different dates by way of demand drafts in the account of one Sh. Rajeev Kumar . The opposite partiesare disputing the receipt of these amounts. The ld. counsel for the complainant had failed to explain as to why the amounts of demand drafts were deposited in the account of Sh.Rajiv Kumar despite the fact that the loan was advanced by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 .


In our opinion , the complainant should have filed either the affidavit of Sh.Rajiv Kumar in whose account he had deposited the various amounts by way of demand draft or he should have been arrayed as a party to the complaint. However, neither affidavit of Sh.Rajiv Kumar has been filed nor Sh. Rajeev Kumar is a party in the present proceedings so as to infer that the amount deposited by the complainant by way of demand draft in the account of Rajeev Kumar was in fact collected by him as Collection agent on behalf of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 .The opposite parties had placed reliance on the statement of accounts in substantiation of their case. However, the complainant has failed to rebut the statement of accounts filed by the opposite parties by leading satisfactory evidence on record .


In our opinion , if the complainant is disputing the correctness of the calculations given by the opposite parties in the statement of accounts , it was incumbent upon the complainant to file his own statement of accounts prepared by some Chartered accountant / expert in accordance with agreement as entered into between the parties. However ,no such statement of accounts has been placed on record by the complainant on the basis of which it can be inferred that he had repaid the entire amount to the opposite parties in accordance with loan agreement . Therefore, in the absence of any satisfactory evidence on the part of the complainant with respect to the accounts, this Forum cannot come to the conclusion as to whether the entire amount has been deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties in accordance with the agreement or not . Moreover these are the matters which can be decided only by competent court of civil jurisdiction by reconciling the accounts.


The forum constituted under the Act is not a proper forum for reconciling the accounts and for deciding the amount due to any of the parties which is to be done only by competent court of civil jurisdiction .To take this view we are fortified by the order of Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Madras in the case titled R. Sethuraman vs The Manager , Indian Overseas Bank and another III(1993)CPJ-1614 wherein it was held that the Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act is not the proper forum for taking accounts and deciding the amount due to any of the parties and which is to be done only by the regular Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.



6 Similarly the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case titled Bihar State Housing Board vs Chairman-cum-Managing Director and others I(1996)CPJ-228(NC) has held as under:-



The dispute in respect of the amount deposited can be settled only by reconciliation of accounts as well as by proof of such deposits by producing counter foils or deposit slips or other evidence. It will also be necessary to go into the Reserve Bank of India’s instructions from time to time laying down the rate of interest payable on such deposits or whether any Bank could deviate from the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. In our view, it is a fit case to leave the parties to their remedies

by way of a civil suit or other remedies as the disputes relates to accounting between the parties.



7 In an another case titled Vishal Roadways vs Economic Traders ( Gujarat ) Ltd ( 1998)NCJ( NC)-539 had the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had taken a similar view by holding that if the dispute between the parties relates to the settlement of the accounts and for balance due on the basis of the accounts , the same does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)( c) and (e) of the Act. The relevant extract of the aforesaid order is reproduced as under:-



As observed by the District Forum, the relation between the complainant and the opponent was of a customer and businessman. In the dealings, the complainant had paid more than the required amount to the opposite party and the complainant was entitled to recover the said amount from them. The allegations made in the complaint did not spell out a case of hiring of services and suffering from deficiency. Rather it disclosed a case relating to the settlement of accounts and for the balance due on the basis of accounts.


The complainant did not fall within the ambit of section 2(1)_(c) and (e) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. Civil suit was the proper remedy to recover the amount paid in excess. The District Forum and the State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint which was beyond the scope of Consumer Protection Act. We hold that the order of the District Forum as well as the State Commission suffer from legal infirmity and are unsustainable in law. In the result the revision petition is allowed, the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside resulting in dismissal of the complaint, However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs”



8 In an another case titled Manmohan Sharma vs M/S Dhillon Kool Drinks and Beverages Limited Latest Himachal Law Judgments 2009 HP- 248 our own Hon’ble State Commission has held that the question of rendition/ settlement of accounts cannot be decided in summary proceedings under the Act and it can be decided only by the Civil Court.

9. In the present case also, as discussed earlier , the dispute between the parties relates to the settlement of the accounts and for balance due on the basis of the accounts which obviously do not fall within the ambit of section 2(1)( c) and (e) of the Act as it requires elaborate and detailed enquiry by a Civil Court and the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is not a proper remedy .

10 In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to exhaust his remedy before the competent court of jurisdiction in accordance with law and the dismissal of the present complaint shall not in any way affect his right in any manner as we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

11 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File after due completion be consigned to the record room.