http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MRS. VISWALAKSHMI SASIDHARAN & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE BRANCH MANAGER,SYNDICATE BANK, BELGAUM

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/02/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This Special  Leave Petition  arises from  the order of the National  Consumer Disputes  Redressal  Commission,  New Delhi. The  petitioners had  loan taken  from the respondent Bank on two accounts, one for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and the other for  Rs. 3,00,000/-. It would appear that the Bank had disbursed a  sum of  Rs 1.47 lacs and the balance amount was not released  to the  petitioners. It was their case, in the complaint laid  before  the  District  Forum,  that  due  to deficiency in service, namely, failure to disburse the total amount contracted  under the agreement, the petitioner could not carry  on the  business and discharge the obligations to pay the labour charges and, therefore, could not manufacture the products  for which orders had been served. Since, there was Since,  there was  slump in  the market,  they could not discharge the  contract  for  repayment.  Accordingly,  they filed the complaint for damages in the sum of Rs.9.50,000/-. The Tribunals  below dismissed  the case  and  the  National Commission confirmed the dismissal of the complaint on three grounds. First,  the petitioner  had not  complied with  the conditions of  the  agreement  of  repayment,  thereby  they committed breach  of the  contract. They  cannot, therefore, complain of  the deficiency of service. Another ground given was that  the suit was filed by the Bank for recovery on the premise that  the Tribunal  could not go into that question. Thirdly it was filed by the bank for recovery on the premise that the  Tribunal could  not go into the question. Thirdly, it was  stated that  in a letter addressed b the petitioners to the  Bank that  they had admitted that the failure to pay the instalments  was due  to slump  in  the  market  of  the finished products  and, therefore,  they could not repay the loan.      Though we  find that  there is  not much  force in  the findings recorded  by the  courts below  on  the  first  tow grounds, the  last grounds merits acceptance. It pursuant to the contract  the Bank  did not  disburse the  amount and if there was  any resultant  default in  the payment on account thereof, that  may be  a defence  open to the petitioners in the suit  and also furnishes right to complain of deficiency in service  to seek  redressal under the Consumer Protection

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Act. On  that Ground,  the relief  could not be rejected and the question  was required  to be  gone into.  Secondly, the mere filing  of the  suit for recovery of the amount may not be an  absolute bar  on  the  commission  to  go  into  that question for  the reason  that the  issue before  that Civil Court is  not the  deficiency in  the service unless that is specifically raised  as defence  in the  suit.   However, we think that  is  one  of  defaults  in  the  payment  of  the instalments. Under those circumstances, merely filing of the suit by  the Bank  does not  put a bar on the Tribunal to go into  the  merits  in  the  complaint.  Each  case  requires examination on  the facts of the case. On the other hand, we find force  in reasoning  given by  the  Tribunal  on  third point, It  is the petitioner’s case that they were unable to produce the  goods and  have them  marketed to  pay back the loan in  instalments. It was not the case that it was due to deficiency in  service. On  the other  hand, it  is admitted that due  to slump  in the  market they  could not  sell the goods, realise  the price  of the  finished product  and pay back the  loan to  the Bank.  That admission stands in their way to  plead at  the late  stage that they suffered loss on account  of   the  deficiency   in  service.   Under   those circumstances,  we   do  not   find  any  ground  warranting interference.      The leave petition is dismissed.