WPMS/64/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 93 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                         AT NAINITAL
           ON THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
                                BEFORE:
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

             Writ Petition (M/S) No. 64 of 2022

 BETWEEN:
       Kashipur Urban Co-operative
       Bank Ltd.                                      .....Petitioner
       (By Mr. Gopal K. Verma, Advocate)


 AND:
       Smt. Kavaljeet Narula & others.                 ....Respondents
       (There is no representation for respondents)



                            JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing.

2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the notice dated 17.12.2021 issued by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby petitioner has been asked to file his reply on or before next date fixed in the matter i.e. 24.01.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent nos. 1 & 2, who have filed complaint, have borrowed money from the petitioner-bank and the writ petition filed by the respondents against recovery proceedings was dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 13.01.2021 with liberty to them to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Thus, according to him, respondents could not have approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udham Singh Nagar.

4. The submission as made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers a right upon every consumer to file a complaint before District Commission constituted under the said Act on any of the grounds enumerated under the said Act. Deficiency of service is one of the ground on which a complaint can be made to District Commission.

5. Perusal of the complaint reveals that respondents have alleged deficiency of service and also unilateral alteration in the terms of loan agreement.

6. Since the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has merely issued notice to the petitioner and no order, prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner has been passed as yet, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter at this stage.

7. Even otherwise also, petitioner has an opportunity of filing of his reply and raising objection regarding maintainability of the complaint, before Consumer Commission.

8. In such view of the matter, writ petition is dismissed as premature with liberty to petitioner to approach the appropriate forum at an appropriate state. No order as to costs.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Navin