Back
2019 Supreme(J&K) 243
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Gita Mittal, CJ. and Rashid Ali Dar, J.
State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Anr. – Respondents
OWP No.400/2019 and IA No.01/2019
Decided on 19.7.2019
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Q.R. Shamas, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Mr. A. Haqani, Advocate for R- 2. Respondent No. 2 also present in person
Headnote:
Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987 – Section 18A – Consumer complaint – Delay – Unfair practice and deficiency of service on part of Bank – Even if it could be held that complaint was barred by limitation, respondent had laid down factual matrix to explain circumstance in which complaint could be filed only after. 2017 – An additional consideration would be admission of these averments by writ petitioner – Impugned order of State Commission cannot be faulted – State Commission rightly held that cause to file complaint arose only when complainant received notice from Income Tax Department in April, 2017 – Complaint filed in year 2018 was within statutory period of limitation of two years – Writ Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-. (Paras 32, 33, 34 and 35)
JUDGMENT :
Gita Mittal, CJ.—By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order dated 29th October, 2018 pass by the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar in complaint No. 39/2018.
2. The order came to be passed in a complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 in May, 2018 before the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar, under Sections 15 and 16 of the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987, seeking compensation of Rs. one crore.
3. The complaint was premised on the ground that respondent No. 2 had received a notice dated 26th December, 2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 corresponding to the financial year 2009-10. In terms of the assessment order dated 26th December, 2017, the respondent No. 2’s detailed turnover for the assessment year 2010-11 was assessed at Rs. 1,25,40,370/-. The Income Tax Department had raised a net income tax demand as payable by respondent No. 2 at Rs. 6,62,050/-.
4. The complaint of respondent No. 2 was premised on the allegation that on account of unfavourable circumstances prevailing in the Kashmir valley, his profession as an advocate was badly affected and he could not earn a livelihood for himself and for his family there from. As such, he was constrained to approach the writ petitioner for grant of loan facility more than a decade back, for establishing a brick kiln unit in the vicinity of his residence situated at Brakepora Anantnag. On completion of required formalities, respondent No. 2 was accorded sanction for release of cash credit limit up to the tune of Rs. 7.00 lacs and, as such, respondent No. 2 was got engaged in brick kiln business. The cash credit limit was maintained by respondent No. 2 satisfactorily without any complaint of any nature, well within the authorized drawing power and within the sanctioned limits as also the norms prescribed by the State Bank of India, the writ petitioner.
5. In para 3 and 4 of the writ petition, the respondent No. 2 (as petitioner in the complaint) has averred as follows:
“3. That the petitioner has been maintaining the account of borrower/complainant digitally and there is absolutely no dispute with the amounts withdrawn by the borrower/ respondent or interest charged by Bank. However, respondent has objected to entries made at the end of every month by virtue of which the utilized credit has been withdrawn, interest calculated and debited and on the same days the utilized balance in the limit has been kept at disposal of the borrower/respondent during the year 2009 to 2010 (Book transfers) of Debit and Credit are made on the same day or next working day and the transactions are clearly non-financial. The officers are SBI are duty bound to maintain the account giving correct picture of the amount due from the petitioner. There was no dispute with regard to the transactions.
4. That, the respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint before the respondent No. 1 in terms of Section 15 & 16 of J&K Consumer Protection Act, 1987 seeking a compensation of Rs. 1.00 Crore, on the ground of having received a notice from Income-Tax Officer Ward-3(4) Anantnag regarding assessment of Income-Tax for the assessment year 2010-11 corresponding to financial year 2009.10. In terms of the assessment order passed by the Income-Tax Department, the petitioners total turn-over for the said assessment year has been taken as Rs. 1,15,40,370/-. Accordingly, Income-Tax Department has raised a demand of Rs. 6,62,050/-.”(Underlining by us)
6. Contending that the respondent No. 2 had never authorized the debit and credit transaction effected in his cash credit loan account, the same was unauthorized and illegal, the respondent No. 2 submitted that the writ petitioner had used the cash credit loan account of the respondent No. 2 for a purpose oth
