M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 1720 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 28.09.2016 passed in C.C.No.61/2015 by District Commission, Mandsaur)

VRIHATAKAR PRATHMIK KRISHI SAKH

SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT, DEEPA KHEDA

DISTRICT MANDSAUR.                                                                                …          APPELLANT

           Versus

KARU SINGH S/O SHRI VARISAL SINGH                                                     …         RESPONDENT.

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

                                      O R D E R

28.11.2023

            Shri Parag Kale for the appellant.

            None for the respondent.

As per A. K. Tiwari : 

                    This appeal filed by the opposite party/appellant-society is directed against the order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandsaur (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.61/2015 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent. 

2.                By filing a complaint before the District Commission, the complainant has challenged the demand for a sum of Rs.1,36,113/- raised by  vide letter dated 11.06.2015 of Tehsildar Sitamau towards outstanding dues of loan amount. It is submitted that the government forgive the said loan under the scheme. It is further submitted that the said loan was become

-2-

time barred and the opposite party-society was not entitled to recover the said dues. The defence of the society that despite repeated reminders, the complainant/respondent failed to repay the loan amount and that is why the demand was raised under RRC.

3.                The District Commission by allowing the complaint quashed the demand of Rs.1,36,113/- raised holding the notice for demand is illegal.

4.                Challenging the impugned order, the society has filed the present appeal stating that the District Commission has erred in allowing the complaint as when the complainant/respondent failed to repay the loan amount, the demand was raised.  When the complainant failed to make payment of outstanding dues, the Revenue Recovery Certificate (RRC) was issued by the Tehsildar to the complainant and it is well settled that RRC cannot be challenged before the Commissions established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5.                Having gone through the record as also the impugned order, we find that admittedly on 11.06.2015 RRC (C-1) was issued for a sum of Rs.1,36,113/- as an arrears of outstanding loan amount due on the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant has filed the present complaint before the District Commission. The District Commission go ahead one step further and quashed the demand so raised, whereas it is well settled that once recovery proceedings under the M. P. Land Revenue Code 1959 are

-3-

going on, the complaint of the complainant/respondent is not maintainable before the District Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has to follow the procedure laid down in M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and not challenge the said demand before the District Commissions, as if the District Commissions were an appellate authority. 

6.                In view of the above we find that the District Commission has committed grave error in allowing the complaint against the settled principle of law. The impugned order is not sustainable and is hereby set-aside.

7.                In the result, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.

                     (A. K. Tiwari)                  (Dr.Srikant Pandey)           

                  Acting President                     Member