ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This revision petition filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order dated 04.04.2019 of the Karnataka State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 469 of 2017 dismissing the appeal against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 720 of 2014 dated 18.01.2017.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the revision petitioner are that he had purchased a used Toyota car bearing registration number TN 37 AV 4500 from Anaamalais Toyota, Coimbatore for which he obtained a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the respondent. He had filed Consumer Complaint No. 90 of 2012 before the District Forum, Coimbatore alleging excessive amount claimed/recovered by the respondents which came to be allowed. He thereafter filed another consumer complaint before the District Forum, Bangalore (No. 720/2017) on the ground that the cause of action was a letter issued by the Bangalore branch office of respondent no.1. This complaint was dismissed with costs of Rs 5,000/- on the ground that the cause of action was established at Coimbatore and relief had been sought regarding the EMIs to be paid on the loan taken for the purchase of the Toyota car from Anaamalais Toyota, Coimbatore from respondent no.1. The cause of action was not considered as it was a letter issued at the request of the applicant and was not a demand letter.

3. The State Commission’s order is based on the exhibits produced before it and the references to them in the District Forum’s order. The order reads:—

“10. On perusal of the records, it is evident that the appellant has filed CC no.90 of 2012 and got the order on 11.04.2013 against the opposite party no.2 as per Ex. A8 (Copy of the judgments on former case – CC/90/2012). The District Forum has also referred to the complaint filed by the appellant at Ex B 8 (Complaint copy of CC no .90 of 2012) and version of opposite party at Ex P (B) 7 (Copy of written version filed by opposite party no.2 in CC no.90 of 2012) and other records. Ex A 9 (copy of the e mail communication of demand letter of Kotak for loan foreclosure dated 05.05.2014) is an e mail message dated 05.05.2014. The District Forum has observed that Ex A 9 shows that the Coimbatore Branch of opposite party no.1 at the request of complainant informed about per day interest and the changing of amount of daily basis so as to accommodate the complainant to make payment at their Bangalore Branch. Ex A9 was issued in case of foreclosure only. Therefore, the observation of the District Forum that the complainant does not get any right on the basis of Ex A 9 and there is no question of any new cause of action. It appears that the complainant had written a letter to the opposite parties after disposal of the Coimbatore case intimating his desire to foreclose the amount and then only this Ex A 9 message was sent to him. Under these circumstances, the observation of the District Forum that the present complaint is also barred by law of limitation has to be accepted. Therefore, the filing of present complaint is nothing but multiplicity of the proceedings. The District Forum in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the impugned judgment has also observed that the approach of the complainant is nothing but misuse of process of court. In the circumstances, the reasons assigned by the District Forum are just and proper and there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum. Hence, the following:

The appeal is dismissed. No costs.

The order passed by the 4th Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore dated 18.01.2017 in CC no. 720 of 2014 is hereby confirmed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Forum for disbursement of the same to the opposite party no.1.

The return the LCR to the District Forum forthwit