NATRAJ BORE WELL SERVICES Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case was heard on the 25th August, 1993. We have also perused the record. In the reply of the Opposite Party Bank a preliminary objection of limitation has been taken inasmuch as the cause of action, according to the Opposite Party, took place on 27th March, 1985 and therefore, the complaint is hopelessly time barred. It is also seen from the Opposite Party's reply that the bank has filed a suit against the petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 55,18,412/- on 10th January, 1991 in the High Court of Delhi. The amount of that suit also relates to the transactions between the complainant and the opposite party which are the subject matter of this complaint, item 11 page 6 of the complaint petition refers. In other words, the disputes between the parties are already sub-judice. It is also relevant to note that the complaint petition was filed on the 9th of September, 1992 i.e. well after the Opposite Party's had filed the suit against the complainant.

(2.) THE Opposite Party has also taken plea that non-grant of financial accommodation or non-grant of loan by a Bank does not amount to deficiency in service. There is considerable force in the plea taken by the Opposite Party - Bank. The Commission is of the view that this is not a complaint involving deficiency of service which can be maintained under the Consumer Protection Act against the Opposite Party-Bank before this Commission. The complaint is dismissed on this short ground. The complainant is free to seek redress for his grievances; if any, in any other Court which may be available to him under the law.