SRIKISHAN & COMPANY Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant Co. against the order dated 26.7.2014 passed by the State consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh, Raipur whereby the State Commission has dismissed the Consumer Complaint No.CC/12/14 filed by the appellant Co. through its Proprietor Sushil Kumar Aggarwal.

(2.) Briefly stated, the factual matrix leading to filing of this appeal are that the appellant firm is engaged in the business of construction contracts (Thekedari). The owner of the appellant firm is Sushil Kumar Aggarwal through whom the appellant firm filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission. It is stated that the appellant is having current account with one of the branches of the OP bank for the last 18 years and the said branch has been providing different kinds of financial facilities including Bank Guarantee Limit, Cash Credit Facility etc. to the appellant. It is further stated that the dispute in question in respect of which the present consumer complaint came to be filed pertains to one such bank guarantee amounting to Rs.25,33,500/- issued by the OP Bank vide Bank Guarantee No. IGL 1211 dated 28.3.2011 for a period of 8 months ending on 28.8.2011. The said bank guarantee was in favour of South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur and the bank guarantee holder was M/s Jagdish Construction Ltd. Incidentally, as per the averment in the complaint, the said Sushil Kumar Aggarwal is also the General Power of Attorney holder of the bank guarantee holder, namely, M/s Jagdish Construction Ltd. As per the allegation, a consumer dispute arose in respect of this bank guarantee provided by the OP Bank for which the appellant firm through its owner filed the consumer complaint in question before the State Commission which on appraisal of the evidence and hearing of the parties, dismissed the same on the ground of non-joinder of parties as well as absence of any deficiency in service or unethical practice on the part of the OP Bank. It is in these circumstances that aggrieved of the impugned order of the State Commission, the appellant Co. has filed the present appeal.

(3.) On notice, the OP Bank contested the consumer complaint by filing its reply in which it opposed the complaint on the question of maintainability because of the non-joinder of the important parties, namely, M/s Jagdish Construction Ltd., Corba and SECL, Bilaspur. The OP Bank also opposed the complaint on merits and pleaded that the complainant/appellant has not approached the State Commission with clean hands while filing its consumer complaint because it has deliberately suppressed the true material facts. Denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP Bank prayed for dismissal of the complaint as not maintainable.