AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IT''s an appeal against the order dated 4.4.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called the ''District Forum''). The District Forum has dismissed the complaint of the appellants/complainants (hereinafter called the complainants) holding that the complainants are not the consumers of the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter called the opposite parties) as transaction involved in the case was only of a borrower and a debtor. We do not find any infirmity in this finding of the District Forum.
THE complainants had filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs. 40,802/- allegedly paid in excess. As per the allegations, the complainants took a loan of Rs. 9,55,000/- from Punjab Financial Corporation, the opposite parties. Out of this Rs. 7,25,000/- were term loan on interest basis @ 20% per annum. Complainants had re-paid an amount of Rs. 7 lacs approximately plus interest. A sum of Rs. 2,61,217/- was found outstanding against the complainants on 22.1.2002 in a meeting between the parties and on that date the opposite parties agreed to waive the penal interest provided the entire outstanding loan was paid by the complainants by 31.3.2002. THE complainants were told that they had to pay Rs. 2,19,159/- after waiver of the penal interest of Rs. 42,058/-. THE complainants paid Rs.25,000/- 4.1.2002 and another sum of Rs. 25,000/- on 31.1.2002 leaving balance of Rs. 1,69,159/-, which was paid on 27.3.2002. When the complainants requested for the return of documents, a sum of Rs. 11,042/- was stated to be outstanding. However, they deposited the amount on 8.5.2002 and a payment receipt was issued as full and final payment. THE documents were still not returned and on enquiry the complainants were told that a sum of Rs. 26,760/- were still due. THE complainants had deposited this amount on 26.8.2002 under pressure, then the documents were returned. In these circumstances, the complainants sought a refund of Rs. 40,802/- which according to them were paid in excess alongwith compensation and costs. The opposite parties have rebutted this assertion made by the complainants and took up the preliminary objection that the complainants were not the consumers and thus, the complaint was not maintainable. It was pleaded that while waiving off penal interest of Rs. 42,058/- the complainants were told to pay the remaining amount by 31.3.2002, which was Rs. 2,36,217/- with further interest from 1.11.2001 but the complainants paid only Rs. 2,19,155/- and not the interest from 1.11.2001. As the complainants had failed to pay the remaining amount by 31.3.2002, they had filed an application for waiving off the penal interest i.e. from Rs. 42,058/- to Rs. 21,029/-. This amount was paid by the complainants without any objection according to the opposite parties. Thus, according to the opposite parties there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties even on merits.
As stated above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum as it has rightly held that the complaint was not maintainable as the relationship of the complainants with the opposite parties was of a borrower and a debtor. While holding so, the District Forum has relied upon the judgment of the National Commission in M/s. Aggarwal Dyeing Industries v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation & Ors., II (1991) CPJ 341, decided on August 6, 1991. The learned Counsel has not been able to distinguish this judgment. It is not necessary to go on merits when the complaint has been decided on the preliminary objection itself.
THE District Forum has dismissed the complaint on merits also and we do not differ with the detailed order passed by the District Forum while dismissing the complaint on merits. THE complainants had made the payment without any protest or objection. In view of the discussion made above, this appeal is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.