Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/13/2024

Sat Parkash S/o Ajmer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Kamboj

23 Jan 2024

ORDER

CC No. 13 of 2024

Sat Parkash Vs. SBI

 

Present:       Sh. Pankaj Kamboj, Adv. for the complainant.

 

1.                Heard. As per the own version of the complainant, he availed loan under the head Kissan Credit Card for Rs.2,00,000/- from the opponent bank and loan account No.65168230418 was maintained by the opponent, in this regard. Ultimately, there arose some dispute between the complainant and the opponent and the opponent-bank filed suit for recovery against the complainant, in Civil Court at Jagadhri and the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, under the one time settlement scheme. The suit was withdrawn and Court fee was ordered to be refunded by the Presiding Officer of the Lok Adalat to the complainant/opponent.

2.                By way of this complaint, complainant alleged the opponent received the court fee as per the terms of the award of the lok adalat but did not returned the same to the complaiant and he filed an application Ex.C3 before the opponent but the opponent did not listen his request and postponed the matter on one or another pretext, which is an act of gross negligence, deficiency in service, causing mental agony, harassment, finanacial loss to the complainant, constraining him to file the complainant.

3.                As per the record, vide an award dated 12.12.2020, passed by National Lok Adalat, at Jagadhri, the court fee was ordered to be refunded to the opponent (plaintiff) and the award of the lok adalat no where ordered the refund of court fee to the complainant. Moreover, the complainant was party before the lok adalat as defendents. So court fees was quit obviously, rightly ordered to be refunded to the opponent. On this score, complaint before the commission is not maintainable. Assuming the version of the complainant, as true, if as per the one of lok adalat dated 12.12.2020 (there is no such word to refund the fee to the complainant/defendant) if the fees was required to be refunded to the complainant then, award of the lok Adalat is to be executable by the civil court concerned and the complaiant was required to file an application before the civil court concerned for implementation of the award of the lok Adalat and this commission has no authority to enforce the award passed by the lok Adalat. On this score, complaint is not maintainable. Furthermore, the refund of court fee by the opponent bank is not falling within the definition of service. The complainant does not fall within the definition of service and on this score, complaint is liable to be dismissed. Lastly, the award of the lok adalat was passed on 12.12.2020 and complaint is instituted on 10.1.2024 whereas, it was required to be filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action as envisaged under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

4.                Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, complaint is dismissed, it being not maintainable before this Commission. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to avail his legal remedy before the civil court concerned, if advised so for the enforcement of Award dated 12.12.2020 passed by the National Lok Adalat at Jagadhri. Complainant is left to bear his own cost of litigation. File be consigned to the records.

                                                                                                            President,

                                                                                                            DCDRC, YNR,

  L.Member                                          Member                                 23.01.2024.

 

Typed by: Aarti.