SAHYOG KRISHI VIKAS SEVA KEND Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this complaint filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complainant seeks the following reliefs :

(2.) This complaint is as vague as it could be. There are no particulars as to how complainant is claiming reliefs. The main allegation is that the opposite party Bank has rendered deficient service in delayed sanction of the loans and then recalling the amount of loan with interest accrued thereon from the complainant.

(3.) It was submitted before us by the opposite party No. 1-Bank that it had filed suit in 1997 for recovery of Rs. 33,89,617.96 against the complainant which was earlier pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Mathura but later on transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal. Immediate reaction of Mr. Romy Chacko, learned Counsel for the complainant was that the suit filed by the Bank was by way of counter-blast inasmuch as the present complaint was filed on 15.7.1996. On 25.6.1996 Bank served a legal notice on the complainant seeking refund of Rs. 27,65,710.96. It is only after this notice of the Bank that the complaint was filed. Moreover, this notice of the Bank was replied by the complainant by its lawyer's notice dated 23.7.1996. By this time this complaint had been filed. But there was no mention of filing of the complaint in that reply sent by the lawyer of the complainant. Rather by subsequent letter dated 9.8.1996 the Bank called upon the complainant to submit again rehabilitation package in detail so that same could be examined by the Bank.