Date of filing:- 29/08/2022.                                                                                                                                                                                                             Date of Order:-19/06/2023.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Complaint No.   24 of 2022.

B. Sunil Kumar, aged about   years, S/o. B. Madhu Sudan, Proprietor M/s. Harsita Traders, R/o. village Gourtikra, Po. Silet, Ps/Tahasil. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh.

                                                                                                                                      Complainant.

V e r s u s

1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Attabira Branch, Attabira, Ps/Tahasil. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh.
2. The Field Officer, State Bank of India, Attabira, Po/Ps. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh.
3. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Attabira, Po/Ps. Attabira, Bargarh.

                                                                                                                    Opposite Party.                         

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :-                                   :- Sri Mohit Kumar Mahapatra, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party No.1,2 and 3 :- :- Sri Ashok Kumar Dash (A), Advocate.

                                                -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Smt. Jigeesha Mishra            .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Smt. Anju Agarwal             .....         .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.19/06/2023.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President :-

1. The Case of the Complainant is that the Opposite parties sanctioned loan to the Complainant as proprietor of M/s Harshita Traders for trading of fertilizers and pesticides for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lakh)only. The Complainant deposited all relevant documents and ROR to the SBI, Attabira Branch. After obtaining loan from the SBI, Attabira Bran ch, the Complainant running his shop and deposit the installment regularly an amount of more thatn 8 lakhs to the Opposite parties bank. When the Complainant could not repay the interest and installment due  to covid 19 Lock down the Opposite Parties bank send a demand notice on 21/08/2021 for informing the Complainant to his account was turned into N.P.A. w.e.f 27/02/2021 due to non payment of interest and installment. After received demand notice from the Opposite Parties Bank the Complainant several times requested to the Opposite Parties Bank. But the Opposite parties Bank threatened the Complainant that if he will not paid the total amount, they will take hard recovery measure with all sorts of legal action. The Complainant went to the Opposite parties bank for settlement, but the Opposite parties bank denied the offer of the Complainant. The act and conduct tendered by the  Opposite parties amounting to Consumer deficiency and unfair practice towards the Complainant. Hence the Complainant filed this case before this Commission.
2. The case of the Opposite Parties is that  the Opposite Parties filed their version and admitted that the Complainant availed the CC Loan A/c. 35740195510 for Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lakh)only. The Opposite Parties submitted that a sum of Rs. 2,04,000/-(Rupees two lakh four thousand)only was found irregular in the said account, so a demand notice dated 21/08/2021 was served on the Complainant for repayment of the said irregular amount. The Complainant did not respond the said demand  notice. Hence the Opposite party bank had took recourse under mandate provision of the securitization and reconstruction of Financial Interest Act 2002 read with security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 and served on him, notice dated 02/09/2021 under section 13(2) of the SERFAESI Act 2002 for repayment of total outstanding amount of Rs. 12,12,195/-(Rupees twelve lakh twelve thousand one hundred ninety five)only with respect his CC Account No. 35740195510. Again the Complainant did not respond the said notice. On the strength of the petition filed by the Opposite Parties, the Honble Collector and District Magistrate, District Bargarh, Odisha has pleased to initiate a proceeding u/s 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Interest Act 2002 read with Security Interest (Enforcement)  Rules 2002 vide Misc Case No. 2 of 2022 and passed a directive order in the said case on dated 13/07/2022 in favour of the authorized officer of the Opposite Parties bank to take step for recovery of the outstanding loan  by taking possession of the secured assets of the Complainant. The Opposite Party quoted section 34 of SARFAEST Act 2002 and submitted that Consumer Commission has no power to entertain this case. Hence prayed for dismissal of the case.
3. On perusal of record it is observed that the authorized officer of State Bank of India issued a letter/ demand notice under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act 2002 on dated 02/09/2021. It is also reveals from the record that an order has been passed by collector and District Magistrate, Bargarh on 13/07/2022. Therefore it is evident that the Opposite Party Bank had initiated  proceeding under  SARFAESI Act against the Complainant prior to filing of the Consumer Complaint.

There are plethora judgements passed by Honble National Commission where it is   observed that the Civil Court or any other authority cannot arrogate to itself the right to make decisions or interfere with the SARFAESI Act, 2002. In this  connection we can rely upon the case law passed in shib Shankar Lal Gupta V. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd  and Ors reported in II (2013) CPJ 56 (N.C), where the Honble National Commission held that when the proceeding of SARFAESI is started by Opposite Party Bank or when the case is pending under SARFAESI Act 2002, Civil Court as well as Consumer Fourm has no power to entertain case/suit/proceeding as per sec 34 of SARFAESI Act 2002.

Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act says the Consumer Commission has no power to interfere when the  notice has been issued under the SARFAESI Act.

In, the present case notice has been served under SARFAESI Act and order has also passed. Hence we are of the opinion that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint in view of Section 34 of SARFAESI Act.

As per Supra  discussion the following order is passed.

                                                                 O R D E R

The Complaint is dismissed on contest. The Complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Parties are left to bear their own cost. The present Complaint petition is disposed of accordingly.

Order pronounced in open court on this  19^th    day of  June 2023.

            Supply free copies to the parties. 

      Typed to my dictation

                                                                                           and corrected by me.                                                                                           

                   I  agree/-                                                                       

       ( Smt. Anju Agrawal )                                                                  ( Jigeesha Mishra )

              Dt.19/06/2023                                                                            Dt.19/06/2023

              M e m b e r  (w)                                                                        P r e s i d e n t.