KARAM SINGH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -the unsuccessful complainant appeals against the order of the District Forum, Karnalnon-suiting him on the threshold groundof non-maintainability with costs.

(2.) The facts are somewhat unusual and lie in a narrow compass. The appellant's allegation in his complaint was that the respondent-State Bank of India had filed a Civil Suit against him for the recovery of Rs.51,000/- in all which was pending trial. However the said bank had issued a letter-cum-notice dated the 28th of October, 1993 wherein it was mentioned that the above suit had been decreed against the complainant and as per terms of the decree the Court had ordered him to repay the amount of loan to the tune of Rs.8241/- plus interest thereon in lumpsum/monthly/six monthly instalments upto the 15th of November, 1993. It was further mentioned that the amount should be repaid soon, failing which the bank would be constrained to put his land to auction as per the terms of the decree. Aggrieved by the said notice which was alleged to be highly derogatory and defamatory and labelling it as a misrepresentation of facts the complaint was instituted.

(3.) The respondent-Bank in its reply took up the threshold preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable and the lis, if any, was not a consumer dispute at all. On merits, it was admitted that the bank had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.51,000/- in all alongwith accrued and future interest. The issue of the letter-cum-notice was tacitly admitted but it was pleaded that the same was done as a reminder and the notice being on a printed proforma there might have been an inadvertent error in ticking the proforma. The plea was that there was no malafide intention to misrepresent or terrorise the complainant.