1. Dispute regarding reduction of cash credit facilities without notice — Complaint filed before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 237
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.Jagannadha Rao : S.P.Bharucha
Amar Jwala Paper Mills India
Versus
State Bank Of India
Case No. : 6277 of 1997
Date of Decision : 2/19/98
A consumer commission cannot relegate a complainant to a civil court on the grounds of complexity after all evidence has been led, as this may deprive the complainant of a remedy due to the expiration of the limitation period.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Law - Relegation of complainant to civil court - Dispute involving complicated issues of fact and law - Order passed after all evidence had been led and concluding arguments were in progress - Relegating a complainant to a civil suit after a significant lapse of time may result in the loss of remedy due to the law of limitation (Paras 2, 3, 4).
(B) Scope of interference - While courts are generally reluctant to interfere with a commission's decision at an initial stage to relegate a party to a civil court on grounds of complexity, such an order is unsustainable if the evidence has already been led by both parties (Para 4).
Facts of the case:
A complaint was filed alleging that a bank had reduced sanctioned cash credit facilities without notice, causing loss. After four years of proceedings, during which all oral and documentary evidence had been led and concluding arguments were underway, the commission relegated the complainant to a civil court, citing that the dispute involved complicated issues of fact and law.
Findings of Court:
The commission must proceed to hear and decide the complaint as the evidence is already on record and the complainant might be barred by limitation if forced to file a fresh civil suit.
Issues: Whether a consumer commission can relegate a complainant to a civil court on the grounds of complexity after the evidence stage is complete and a substantial period has elapsed.
Ratio Decidendi: A commission cannot relegate a party to a civil court on the grounds of complexity after the evidence has already been led, as this would be unjust and potentially deprive the party of a remedy due to the expiration of the limitation period.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a complaint should be relegated to a civil court due to complexity after evidence has been led and significant time has elapsed. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. Relegating a party to a civil court after evidence is led and years have passed may deprive them of a remedy due to limitation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
4. A consumer commission should not relegate a party to a civil court on grounds of complexity after all evidence has been led and significant time has elapsed. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — Order set aside — Complaint restored to National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for decision. (Para 5 )
6. Can a consumer commission relegate a complainant to a civil court if the matter is complex?
While commissions may generally relegate complainants to civil courts at an initial stage if complicated questions of fact and law arise, they should not do so after all evidence has been led and significant time has passed. (Para 4 )
7. What is the risk of relegating a complainant to a civil court after a long delay?
Relegating a complainant to a civil suit after several years may result in the complainant having no remedy at all because the period of limitation for filing a civil suit may have expired. (Para 3 , 4 )
8. When must a consumer commission proceed to decide a complaint despite perceived complexity?
A commission must proceed to hear and decide the complaint when all oral and documentary evidence has already been led by both sides before the commission. (Para 2 , 4 )
(1) THE order under appeal was passed on 26/3/1997 in a complaint that was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in 1993. The order states that
"THE dispute raised by the complainant involves complicated issues of fact .and law, the satisfactory determination of which cannot be made except after elaborate evidence is adduced (both oral as well as documentary) and detailed arguments are heard, all of which can be properly done only in a regular suit instituted before a civil court".
The complainant was relegated to the remedy of filing a civil suit. It is in appeal by special leave.
(2) WHAT the order under appeal does not say is (and this is admitted by both sides) that all the evidence, oral and documentary, that both sides had to lead was led before the Commission and that concluding arguments were in progress when the impugned order was passed. It cannot be that the complexity of the matter was only discovered at the stage of the concluding arguments, and for this purpose we assume that there is some complexity in the matter for reading the complaint and the reply does not suggest it. The case of the complainant is that the respondent-Bank had sanctioned cash credit facilities in a certain sum and had, without notice to the complainant, reduced that sum causing loss to the complainant, which loss was claimed by the complainant.
(3) RELEGATING a complainant four years after the filing of the complaint to a civil suit might mean that the complainant has no remedy at all because limitation would have run against him.
(4) WHILE we would be reluctant to interfere with an order of the Commission that decides at an initial stage of a complaint that complicated questions of fact and law arise and that, therefore, the complainant must go before a civil court, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that in this case four years have passed and all the evidence has already been led by both sides before the Commission. In the circumstances, we think that the Commission must itself proceed to hear and decide the complaint.
(5) THE appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The complaint, being Original Petition No. 94 of 1993, is restored to the file of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, to be heard and decided according to law. Both parties shall be entitled to address concluding arguments to the Commission afresh.
(6) NO order as to costs.
