Karnataka High Court
K Vijaya Kumar vs M/S Five Star Business on 1 April, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.7177 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. K. VIJAYA KUMAR
S/O LATE S. KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
2. SMT. V. DAKSHAYINI
W/O K. VIJAYA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
3. CHANDRASHEKHAR
S/O K. VIJAYA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
DOOR NO.478,
NEAR MAHATMA TEMPLE,
UTTARAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 061.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHIDAMBARA G.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. FIVE STAR BUSINESS
FINANCE LIMITED,
A COMPANY REGISTERD UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.39, OUTER CIRCULAR ROAD,
KILPAUK,
2
CHENNAI-600 010.
TAMILNADU STATE.
OFFICE AT:
NO.712, 2ND FLOOR,
DR. MODI HOSPITAL ROAD,
NEAR KADAMBA HOTEL,
MAHALAKSHMIPURA,
BENGALURU-560 079.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
M.V. MAHESH, MANAGER.
....RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 05TH FEBRUARY, 2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A
PASSED BY THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN COMMERCIAL EXECUTION NO.119 OF
2021 ON IA.NO.I AND PASS APPROPRIATE CONSEQUENTIAL
ORDERS ALLOWING THE SAID APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS BY GRANTING THE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR
THEREIN; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Writ petition is filed by the Judgment Debtors in
Commercial Execution Petition No.119 of 2021 on the file of the
X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural
District, challenging the order dated 05th February, 2022.
2. Relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are
that the Judgment Debtor No.1/petitioner No.1 herein has filed
Consumer complaint No.1949 of 2019 on the file of the District
Consumer Redressal Forum at Bengaluru claiming relief against
the opposite party therein to provide proper deduction of the
payment made by him towards his loan account. The said
complaint is pending consideration before the Consumer Forum.
In the meanwhile, the respondent herein has filed Commercial
Execution Petition No.119 of 2021 against the petitioners herein,
seeking recovery of the sum outstanding in the loan account
along with interest. In the said proceedings, Judgment
Debtors/petitioners herein have filed application under Order XXI
Rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Code to stay the further
proceedings in the Execution proceedings on the ground that the
consumer complaint No.1949 of 2019 is pending consideration
before the Consumer Forum at Benglauru. The said application
was dismissed by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by the
same, Judgment Debtors have presented this writ petition.
3. I have heard Sri. Chidambara G.S., learned counsel
appearing for petitioners, who contended that the Executing
Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the Judgment
Debtor No.1/petitioner No.1 herein has filed complaint against
the respondent in respect of the very same loan transaction.
Therefore, the trial Court ought to have stayed the further
proceedings in the Execution proceedings.
4. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel
appearing for petitioners, I have carefully considered the prayer
made before the Consumer Redressal Forum, Bengaluru in the
complaint which reads as under:
"a) Direct the opposite parties to give proper deduction to
the payment made by him towards his loan account.
b) Direct the opposite parties to pay the compensation a
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) for the
mental hardship, agony and harassment meted by the
Complainant at the hands of opposite parties and also
Rs.25,000/- towards cost of this proceedings.
c) To pass such other reliefs as this Hon'ble forum deems
fit to pass in the circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice and equity."
5. On perusal of the relief sought for by petitioners herein
before the Consumer Redressal Forum and material available on
record before the Executing Court, I am of the view that the said
Consumer complaint cannot be equated with the claim made in
the suit by the plaintiff and the submission made by the learned
counsel with regard to scope and ambit of Order XXI Rule 29
cannot be accepted, since the object of the constitution of
Consumer Forum under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to
provide relief to the aggrieved parties relating to deficiency of
service on the part of the opposite party. As the order has been
passed by the trial Court two years ago and the said order has
not been challenged by the petitioners herein, before the
Appellate Court, and in that view of the matter, I do not find any
material illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial
Court. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ARK
