ORDER

PER MR. PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.11.2018 of the State Commission wherein the application for interim relief of the of the complainant has been dismissed.

2. The interim reliefs claimed in the application are mentioned in the following portion of the State Commission’s order as follows:-

“The complainant has prayed that OP-2 may be directed to freeze loan account of the complainant in respect of Flat No. 301, 3 BHK (1575 sq.ft.), Nikhil Woodland Apartment, situated at Kakretha Mauza, Shastripuram, Agra and not to bounce/dishonor EMIs of the loan account. The other reliefs is directing OP-2 not to misuse/present five security blank cheques given by the complainant without written consent of complainant. Third relief is restraining OP-2 from contacting/demanding from complainant in respect of EMI of loan and last is to direct OP not to claim/charge any cheque bounce charge, standing instruction charges, over due charge, penal charge or any kind of interest by other name”

3. The learned counsel stated that the State Commission has dismissed the application for interim relief of the complainant, therefore, the complainant is in double loss as the complainant is not able to enjoy the property as well as complainant has to pay EMIs which was the duty of opposite party no. 1. He further stated that the said property has been attached by the financier under the provisions of SARAFAESI Act.

4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and have examined the record.

5. The State Commission in its order dated 20.11.2018 has finally observed the following:-

“We feel that aforesaid clause casts obligation on OP-1 to refund the amount to OP-2. That is all. It does not oblige OP-2 not to recover the amount from OP-1. To allow, the application would amount to curtail the right of OP-2 to recover its amount which is against the fundamental principles of loan. Creditor is always entitled to recover his money. Moreover, interim relief if allowed would amount to decide the main complaint and granting final relief. That is again not permissible. The application is dismissed.”

6. From the above, it is clear that the reliefs claimed in the interim application were more or less the same as final reliefs prayed in the consumer complaint. The State Commission seems to be right by observing that the interim reliefs if allowed would amount to decide the main complaint. I agree with the observations of the State Commission in this regard. In my view, until both the parties agree, generally, the final prayers made in the complaint may not be allowed at an interim stage. It is also true that once the complainant has taken loan, the complainant has to replay the same and the State Commission is also right in observing that if EMIs are stayed, it would amount to curtailing the right of the creditor – opposite party no. 2.

7. Based on the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal as the order of the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error. Accordingly, F.A. No. 346 of 2019 is dismissed at the admission stage.

......................

PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER