STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR -37 A, CHANDIGARH Date of Institution : 06.07.2021 Date of Decision : 08.12.2022 M/s Tarsem Electrical, Near Sanjeevani Hospital, Main Road, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Proprietor Tarsem Lal Garg aged about 70 years. …..Appellant/Complainant Versus State Bank of India, Branch Bassi Pathana, ITI Chowk, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, through its Branch Manager.

Email id: sbi.50014@sbi.co.in Ph.no : 01763-250052 …..Respondent/Opposite Party First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib in Consumer Complaint No.69 of 2020.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Harkaran Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Sumit Narang, Advocate

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-

The appellant/complainant M/s Tarsem Electrical, Near Sanjeevani Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib through its Proprietor Tarsem Lal Garg has filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the ‘Act’) being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred as the “District Commission”) whereby the complaint filed by the complainant has been dismissed.

2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission wherein notice was issued to the opposite party (in short ‘OP’) and reply thereof was filed. Thereafter during pendency of the complaint an application was moved by the OP for dismissal of the complaint and for setting aside the proceedings of the complaint till any decision taken on the application. It was mentioned in the application that the complainant had availed cash credit limit from the Bank for commercial purposes and said limit was increased by the Bank to the tune of Rs.36,00,000/-. It was further mentioned in the application that the loan was for the commercial purposes and it was also sanctioned for commercial purposes by considering the limit. All the transactions between the Bank and the complainant were of commercial nature and limit was also sanctioned accordingly. It was further mentioned in the application that the District Commission was having no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint and the same was liable to be dismissed with cost. The prayer in the application was for allowing the application and for dismissal of the complaint with cost till the pendency of the application, the proceedings before the District Commission be stayed.

4. Said application was allowed vide order dated 25.03.2021 by the District Commission in absence of any reply of the application or even arguments.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.

6. There was a delay of 57 days in filing of the appeal. M.A. No.715 of 2021 was filed for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Delay of 57 days was condoned vide order dated 26.07.2021 and said M.A. was disposed of accordingly.

7. Mr. Harkaran Singh Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant submits that notice was issued to respondent/OP in the complaint for 07.12.2020 and thereafter respondent appeared and sought time to file reply. The complaint was adjourned for 14.01.2021 for filing reply and respondent/OP filed reply alongwith the application for dismissal of the complaint and it was adjourned for filing of rejoinder vide order dated 18.02.2021. Thereafter, the case was fixed