CIMA No. 147 of 2014. Case: Chairman, J&K Bank, Srinagar and Ors. Vs Farooq Ahmad Mir. Jammu and Kashmir High Court
|Case Number:||CIMA No. 147 of 2014|
|Party Name:||Chairman, J&K Bank, Srinagar and Ors. Vs Farooq Ahmad Mir|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Javed Iqbal, Advocate and For Respondents: Shah Aamir, Advocate|
|Judges:||N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, C.J. and Ali Mohd. Magrey, J.|
|Judgement Date:||July 29, 2015|
|Court:||Jammu and Kashmir High Court|
N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, C.J.
This appeal is filed by the Chairman, J&K Bank as well as by the Branch Manager, J&K Bank, Qamarwari, Srinagar challenging the order passed by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar, dated 22.07.2014 made in Complaint No. 101/2012, awarding compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent who is a businessman selling articles under the name and style of Kashmir Arts, for harassment and loss of face suffered by him due to the publication of his photograph as defaulter to the tune of Rs. 16.72 Lacs in daily newspaper Greater Kashmir on 21.08.2009, though he was to pay a sum of Rs. 4,82,983.53 only.
Stating that the said action of the Bank has tarnished his reputation and business interest as if he is a bankrupt and sustained business loss apart from mental stress, claiming Rs. 15 lacs as compensation with Rs. 50,000/- as costs, the complaint was filed by the respondent before the Divisional Forum, Srinagar initially in November, 2011 which was returned by the Divisional Forum in view of valuation, to be presented before the, J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the Commission hereafter),due to which the complainant presented the complaint before the Commission on 27.07.2012. For condoning the delay in presenting the complaint the complainant filed an application stating that he was out of the State on religious tour with Allahwale. The said condone delay application was opposed by the appellants, however, the delay was condoned and the matter was taken up for consideration on merits and a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants have challenged the order by contending that without first disposing of the condone delay application and giving liberty to contest the matter on merits after the delay is condoned, the Commission has chosen to decide the merits of the matter on condone delay stage itself, may be after condoning the delay, and the said procedure is not proper. The second contention of the appellant- Bank is that merely because the respondent availed loan, the transaction between the appellants and the respondent cannot be treated as a service and unless it is treated as service, there cannot be any deficiency of service to attract the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. He has also relied on certain decisions in support of his contention.
The said contentions were opposed by the learned...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL