AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the notice dated 17.12.2021 issued by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Udham Singh Nagar, whereby petitioner has been asked to file his reply on or before next date fixed in the matter i.e. 24.01.2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent nos. 1 & 2, who have filed complaint, have borrowed money from the petitioner-bank
and the writ petition filed by the respondents against recovery proceedings was dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated
13.01.2021 with liberty to them to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Thus, according to him, respondents could not have approached the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Udham Singh Nagar.
The submission as made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers a right upon every
consumer to file a complaint before District Commission constituted under the said Act on any of the grounds enumerated under the said Act.
Deficiency of service is one of the ground on which a complaint can be made to District Commission.
Perusal of the complaint reveals that respondents have alleged deficiency of service and also unilateral alteration in the terms of loan agreement.
Since the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has merely issued notice to the petitioner and no order, prejudicial to the interest of the
petitioner has been passed as yet, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter at this stage.
Even otherwise also, petitioner has an opportunity of filing of his reply and raising objection regarding maintainability of the complaint, before
Consumer Commission.
In such view of the matter, writ petition is dismissed as premature with liberty to petitioner to approach the appropriate forum at an appropriate
state. No order as to costs.