Order No. : 01

Date : 12.06.2019

Complainant is present through Ld. Lawyer.

The case is taken up for admission hearing.

Heard. Considered.

Perused the petition of complaint and the documents filed thereof.

It appears that the deceased husband of the complainant took capital loan from OP 1 Bank to the tune of Rs. 810000.00p. The husband of the complainant failed to repay the loan.

It appears that OP 1 issued notice U/S 13 (2) and 13 (3) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 dated 22.05.2018 upon the deceased husband of the complainant.

Subsequently, Bank also published “possession notice” in the Telegraph newspaper on 12.01.2009 and subsequently disposed of the mortgaged property as per SARFAESI Act.

It also appears that the husband of the complainant preferred an application U/Sub Sec. (6) of Sec. 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Hon’ble Calcutta Debts Recovery Tribunal II being registered as SA 21/2009 against the OP1.

It is not clear before this Commission what was the fate of the case that was filed before Debts Recovery Tribunal or whether the matter is still pending before Hon’ble D.R.T., Calcutta. No complaint is tenable in Consumer Fora when the matter is earlier filed or pending before Debts Recovery Tribunal. Moreover, the prayer portion of the complaint is obscured and not sufficient in itself.

Considering all aspects, we think that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission when the matter was filed and/or pending before Debts Recovery Tribunal, and when Bank took recourse to proceeding SARFAESI Act.

We are afraid, we are unable to entertain the complaint. The instant complaint is not maintainable on the point of jurisdiction, as such.

The instant case is thus disposed of being not maintainable in law.