AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS complaint has been filed on 18.2.2002 seeking compensation of Rs. 62,20,899/- and Rs. 2.00 lakhs as additional compensation or Rs. 50,000/- for each of the three complainants being the Directors of the first complainant. Certain other directions are also sought against the opposite party-Bank. Particulars of the claim are given in para 23 of the complaint are as under : "1. Direct losses on account of Rent, Salaries, Insurance and overheads Rs. 14,21,809/- 2. Loss of interest on investment Rs. 26,86,094/- 3. Bad Debts Rs. 18,21,856/- 4. Expenses incurred in securing bank loan Rs. 91,140/- 5. Loss of goodwill an Rs. 5,00,000/- Rs. 65,20,899/-"
These claims are further particularised in an Annexure to the complaint.
SAME complaint was earlier filed it being Original Petition No. 119/2001 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.4.2001 with the following order : "Mr. Verma, Authorised Representative states that he might be permitted to withdraw this petition and to enable him to file it before the State Commission with proper claim of damages. Liberty as prayed is given. The original petition is dismissed as withdraw."
As to why again same complaint has been filed in the National Commission, it is contended that in the earlier complaint filed for the same reliefs quantification was not done by the complainant at that stage and as a result it was thought that the quantified damages will (not ?) make complaint of the complainant maintainable before the State Commission in view of the pecuniary jurisdiction prescribed in the statute. We may not go into the question as to the maintainability of this second complaint itself but we find that a great deal of evidence will be required for the complainants in support of their reliefs claimed. The very nature of the particulars of the claims show the complexity of the facts. From the complaint it also appears that the opposite party-Bank had filed its suit before the Debt. Recovery Tribunal at Mumbai. In fact this suit was earlier filed in the Bombay High Court and subsequently transferred to the Debt. Recovery Tribunal. Before the Debt. Recovery Tribunal it is Suit No. OA 2170/2000. Complainants have not cared to file copy of that suit in these proceedings to show as to what amount is due from them to the opposite party-Bank. We do not think it is a case which could be tried by us in our summary jurisdiction. The complaint is, therefore, dismissed. We gave option to the complainants to again withdraw the complaint and seek their remedy before appropriate Forum, but learned Counsel for the complainants said that complaint as well be dismissed.